Don't see why the music is such a problem for people. It's got kind of a 60s star trek type sound to it along with some jazzy wierdness and some beats that are hard to follow. Almost like you're watching a video about something in space, where lots of unpredictable random things are happening but where the big picture is coherent. hmmm
Not so sure about the science lesson... the moon is a spherical object, which means it was formed in heat whilst spinning (centrifugal force). However, there is nearly no rotation in the lunar orbit, so what made it stop spinning?
Anyway, loved the music, which fits the video quite well! Who's it by?
@ShaunnyBwoy Interactions with the earth's gravity slowed the moon's rotation time to equal its time to orbit the earth. Too longwinded to cover in a youtube comment, but look up Tidal Locking on wikipedia
That collison is to much. It wasnt a direct impact like that. It was a glancing blow. I understand why the video i slike this but it makes it look silly and makes the thoery look stupid also. As far as we can tell it did not happen like this but the second part is correct.
Ever notice how astronomers always use these cosmic collisions to explain away just about everything. Mercury's inexplicable iron core, Uranus' unusual tilt, Venus' counterintuitive rotation, Mars' thin atmosphere, the missing and presumed destroyed planet between Mars and Jupiter, and even dinosaur extinction on Earth are all attributed to an asteroid or other large object crashing into them and altering things forever. Give it a rest guys.
@angi223344 I'm not disputing that asteroids crash into things, what astronomers seem to do however is continuously use these cosmic collisions as a sort of a magic wand whenever they encounter something that threatens their delicately constructed models. After awhile the whole thing becomes absurd.
@theabiotictheory Collisions are used because they are part of the Nebular Theory ... you can't fault a theory for using one of it's main tenets. That would be similar to getting mad at Fench Fry makers because they all use potatoes.
I heard recently that the moon did not form naturally... Would that theory (involving the idea that the moon was placed there) indeed make the most sense?
Such a fantastic unbiased and absolutely impossible idea doesn't even deserve to be taken under any scientific consideration in the first place. This shit is based on an arbitrary proposition and belief which stands against scientific core principles. Therefore this proposition is false and flawed from its very starting point up to the end of this hollow dry and disgracefully dumb speculation.
This is the dumbest proposition I ever heard, and might never hear again for as long as I live. This silliness doesn't even qualify for a scientific hypothesis. One thing it qualifies for is a dump of nonscientific ignorant fool so ignorant and arrogant to have the audacity of presenting such a nonsense as a scientific hypothesis at first place.
ha ha ha..I love it when the religious nuts try to argue a scientific point based on their regilious believes. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the theory depicted in this video is correct.
If the moon didn't rotate we would be able to see the darkside. If you don't believe that try to get one ball move in a circle around another one so that only one side faces the one in the middle.
The Earth and Moon are tidally locked. Do a search for 'tidal locking' on Wikipedia.
"I love it when the religious nuts try to argue a scientific point based on their regilious believes."
You really should read, "Taking Science on Faith" by Paul Davies (NYT, Novmember 2007). I just love the last line, "But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus." (Oh, did I mention Davies is an atheist?)
Speaking of Wiki, see "Horizon Problem" and "List of unsolved problems in physics"
@AA32m7io1 Paul Davies has been criticised by many on his views about religion and science and your quote is nothing more than his opinion.
Science has never claimed to have the answers to everything at any point in time and it openly admits that. 100 years ago we did not know how the Sun produced its energy, now we do. In 100 years (or quite possibly a lot sooner) that list of unsolved problems in physics will be a lot shorter.
"In 100 years (or quite possibly a lot sooner) that list of unsolved problems in physics will be a lot shorter."
Maybe. And what about that pesky "Horizon Problem"?
Wiki says, "Quantum physics demands that this initial temperature difference should have actually existed at the Big Bang due to the uncertainty principle, such that there is no way that the universe could have formed with precisely the same properties everywhere. The magnitude of this problem is quite large."
@AA32m7io1 I think I might go bang my head against this wall over here as I suspect I will get a bit further with it. You should have a good look at religious history as it is full of skulduggery and persecution of those who dared to speak the truth.
"You should have a good look at religious history as it is full of skulduggery and persecution of those who dared to speak the truth."
I agree. So what's your point? (BTW, I am not Catholic)
Now how does attempting to divert my attention to religious history resolve the "Horizon Problem" currently challenging the entire theory of the Big Bang? It was a nice try, but now please provide your thoughts about the Horizon Problem.
I hope you find what you are looking for as I am not going to waste any more of my time on this...my head hurts from banging it on the wall.
BTW my point was that religion has done more harm than good to human development . It has always tried to halt the advancement of science in fear of people finding the truth and/or reducing its control over people.
Now please tell me (since you are clearly PWNED with the Horizon Problem, and hence your incessant focus on religion) why origins is important. Who cares, right? After all, we know that we are here right now, so why does it matter how it all started?
BTW, is origins, a one-time event which took place in the past, observable, testable and falsifiable? Nope! Looks like you're back to Paul Davies... taking science on faith! That must be such a shallow feeling for you!
Rather, it's the environmentalists who tell us to abandon the advancements of science (e.g., planes, cars, genetically modified foods, air conditioning, etc.) because they are supposedly destroying the earth.
LOL! Inflation Theory = emperor's new clothes. Please tell me how it works.
BTW, even Guth doesn't know how it works. That's why it's STILL a "problem"! ("Guth's Grand Guess," Discover Magazine, April 2002).
If you think because I'm a Christian that I'm against science, you are incorrect! Science (e.g., Hubble telescope) helps me discover the wonder of everything God has made. In fact, I just had laser surgery on my retina last week! Science in action!!
Earth's moon is the only moon in our solar system that doesn't rotate. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Naturally occurring spheres in a vacuum rotate naturally. Yet earth's moon doesn't rotate at all. Why? Because it's an artificial construct under its own power. Who put it there and why I haven't a clue. But I'd be willing to bet my left nut that it's not a naturally occurring body.
Respond to this video... Then say goodbye to your left nut...., you nut. The moon rotates!! We see the same side because of the moon's orbit around the earth. If the moon were to stop in it's orbit we would see it's rotation. You need to do a lot of reading my friend...., seriously!
@libraryquiet The Bible is nothing more than Pagan/Norse/Greek/Roman Mythology mashed together over several centuries. Humans are the only species aware of one's own impending demise, so we invented "afterlife" as a result of that fear. Pure narcissism. This planet can get wiped out by interstellar gamma rays from a supernova, and the universe will continue on like we never existed in the first place. This universe is roughly 15 BILLION years old, we've been around for a mere hundred thousand.
@alucard1931 Right on brother. It's always good to come across someone with a sensible outlook and awareness of the knowledge we've gained through scientific breakthroughs, advancements and discoveries.
Yeah, awesome moon-forming background music. Also, though I have know idea how the genetics debate got started, I feel I need to give this fact. We are 70% the same as a banana. Source: random professor at a conference my friend's dad attended.
This is not working, because of its lack of explanation of the relationship between the moon, earth and the plane of the ecliptic. The most sensible, coherent and in-depth hypothesis on the formation of the moon is in the Impact And Exit Event hypothesis. See more at theimpactandexitevent com
oh dear, another pretend christian makes claims he cannot understand ..
oh google Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery," Thinks all young creationist adherents are fu*king crazy. And then the creationist take an arguement against there cause and use it to try to promote their mystical thinking (bada's conclusions from radiativity). You AA32 are a lying shit...
How do you explain the fact that 30 million years ago, the surface of the Sun would have touched Earths present orbit? While the earth was busy forming the moon, it would have been submerged in burning hydrogen and helium. Also, nature its self is irrefutable evidence for something beyond nature, because of the law of cause and effect. So if there is a God, it makes total sense to at least consider the possibility that he created the moon, don't you think?
"How do you explain the fact that 30 million years ago, the surface of the Sun would have touched Earths present orbit?"
LOL... We don't have to explain what nobody with scientic credibility is saying. where did you got the idea that the sun was that much bigger in the past?
The particles were moving fast enough to keep them in orbit, just as the space shuttle and skylab have to move fast enough to keep them in orbit. Objects further away don't have to move as fast to stay in orbit due to weaker gravity--Mercury moves much more quickly around the sun than does Earth.
Wouldn't most of the debris just come hurtling back to the earth be cause of gravity?Why would it stay in orbit?The moon is further away and biger so wouldn't gavity atract the smaller pieces because they are closer and smaller?Corect me if I'm rong,I just want to learn.
I'm sure some of it does but since the rock's trajectory is outward it probably would expel into space or slow down due to Earths gravity pull but it won't make it slap back. It would act as like the many satillites orbiting the Earth right now. Except there would be a whole wack of them colliding with each other. Hense formations of larger ones if the conditions are hot enough. Which i suppose they were.
Remember that this simulation merely carried out the basic physical law that two objects attract each other with a gravitational force proportional to the product of their masses divided by the square of the distance between them. It also implements Newton's three laws of motion. So if the simulation is accurate, and it seems to be, then what happens is by definition quite plausible. It closely matches what we see in the real world, so it's a good theory. That's science.
Why did only one moon form instead of many smaller moons?
"We conclude that an earth system with multiple moons is the final result unless some particularly severe constraints on initial conditions in the disk are met." Robin M. Canup and Larry W. Esposito, "Accretion of the Moon from an Impact-Generated Disk," Icarus, Vol. 119, February 1996, p. 427
Also, wouldn't the impact either be too slight to form our large Moon, or so violent the Earth would end up spinning too fast?
The energy in the collision has nothing to do with the rate things spin afterward. No matter how violent the collision, the total angular momentum of all the pieces stays exactly the same. This would depend largely on the exact path the impactor took toward the earth, which could either increase or decrease the angular momentum of the earth.
Google these two articles - not from Creationist websites:
"New water find challenges theories of Moon's formation" (Telegraph, 2008)
"Glass Beads from Moon Hint of Watery Past" (NPR, 2008)
The NPR article says, "This is a problem for the giant impact theory, says Hauri. 'It's hard to imagine a scenario in which a giant impact melts, completely, the moon, and at the same time allows it to hold onto its water,' he says. 'That's a really, really difficult knot to untie.'"
Just the kind of puzzle that scientists love to solve. There will probably be a modification of the giant impact theory to account for this. Maybe the water came from cometary impacts after the moon formed?
We have the giant impact theory because the evidence, especially Apollo samples, was inconsistent with all three of the prevalent pre-Apollo theories. This is how science works..collect evidence, rule out incompatible hypotheses, modify existing theories or suggest new ones, repeat.
Why doesn't the moon orbit in earth's equatorial plane?
The moon's orbital plane is inclined 18.5-28.5 degrees to the earth's equatorial plane. (The moon's orbital plane precesses between those values over an 18.6-year cycle.) This is a considerable inclination when recognizing that the moon possesses 82.9 percent of the angular momentum of the earth-moon system. No other planet-satellite system comes close to this amount.
Why doesn't the moon orbit in earth's equatorial plane?
The moon's orbital plane is inclined 18.5 - 28.5 degrees to the earth's equatorial plane. (The moon's orbital plane precesses between those values over an 18.6-year cycle.) This is a considerable inclination when recognizing that the moon possesses 82.9% of the angular momentum of the earth-moon system. No other planet-satellite system comes close to this amount.
Why SHOULD the moon orbit in the earth's equatorial plane? Most of its angular momentum probably came from the Mars-sized impactor orbiting the sun. This object, like most large objects, have roughly the same orbital plane; the earth's plane is the ecliptic. So you'd expect the moon to orbit roughly in the ecliptic -- and it does! So I think that's evidence for the giant impact theory.
If small particles splashed from earth, they would have completely melted, allowing any water inside them to escape into the vacuum of space. But Apollo astronauts found tiny glass beads on the moon that had erupted as molten material from inside the moon but had dissolved water inside.
"This is a problem for the giant impact theory, says Hauri. 'Its hard to imagine a scenario in which a giant impact melts, completely, the moon, and at the same time allows it to hold onto its water,' he says. 'That's a really, really difficult knot to untie.'"
Nell Greenfieldboyce, quoting Erik Hauri, Glass Beads from Moon Hint of Watery Past," 12 July 2008
3) Things change drastically over the next 4.2 billion years, and then here comes an organism that is us, that realizes these things, and here we are on you tube bitching about stupid shit.
This animation is not very plausible but the concept is.
The hubble captured several dozen galaxay collisions, and there is a spin off of debris before they impact. Imagine a golf ball and a billiard ball, both turning, one slightly more dense already, causing the imbalance of attraction.
what happened was that these two balls attracted, and like attracts like, so all of the heavy material became concentrated like a lava lamp in a horribly disastrous and epic collision where materials were shared as molten hot blobs, shooting debris everywhere, and finally one settled into a lighter ball and the other separated into more complex water wet system with plate tectonics and a constantly evolving biota assortment.
I dont buy it, so we have other planets with moons and ours is the only one made from a collision... How about this,,,,its just another blob of material that got trapped in our gravity...
Did you know that jewish sages say that in the torah is written ..."the lord threw a stone to the earth" in the creation of this world, thats the "mountain" of his holly place (not the temple mount) but a "mountain" beneath the land of Israel
the smaller planet's impact caused particles to be shot out all around the earth. These particles then aggregated very slowly at first until a sufficient gravitational difference was developed between some of them as they grew larger. this then caused a chain reaction resulting in our current moon.
It's not plausible at all. Think about this. They say they're about the same age (the moon and the earth). But the hypothesis suggests that earth was already there, a rock was there, they collided, earth remained round for some reason, and moon formed after a long time because of the debris. If that's the case, how can the moon and earth be about the same age if it was formed later?
Your confusing things. Earth and what would be the moon were formed at the same time as the gas particles in the great gas cloud that formed the solar system coalesced and it is believed that the smaller body trailed behind the earth until it collided causing the reaction.
Any body larger than a certain size (a few hundred km, depending on composition) will become spherical due to its own gravity. A sphere has the lowest gravitational energy, and systems always tend toward their lowest energy state. Also, forming planets differentiate - the heavy stuff, like iron, sink to the center, again to lower total gravitational energy. So both the moon and earth became differentiated spheres after the collision and accretion of the proto-moon.
Well, you certainly don't find MUCH gold, now do you?
Not ALL of it sinks when the planet differentiates. Just most of it. The core is mostly iron, but iron is also common in the crust. Primordial metallic meteorites have many heavy isotopes that are rare in the earth's crust, like iridium, the sign of the asteroid that nailed the dinosaurs 65M years ago.
"Gold is a rare element"? True. While the price has risen (thanks to the falling dollar), it must not be too rare since its found virtually everywhere - jewelry, computers, money, etc.
On another note, how were sediments cemented to form rocks? More specifically, how were large quantities of cementing agents (limestone and silica) produced, transported, and deposited, often quite uniformly, between sedimentary grains worldwide?
Sediments are cemented because they are usually transported by water which already has limestone and/or silica dissolved in it. We can actually see this happening right now. Then the future consolidated rocks go through a process called diagenesis.
So how did limestone form? And why does it contain more calcium and carbon than the atmosphere, oceans, coal, oil, and living matter combined?
Also, where did all the silica come from to cement sediments?
And since this video is about the formation of the moon, what are your thoughts about these articles I posted a few months ago: "Glass Beads From Moon Hint Of Watery Past" (NPR, July 10, 2008) and "New water find challenges theories of Moon's formation" (Telegraph, 2008).
Limestone is many formed in result of biological factors. Certain living beings accumulate calcium and carbon and elevate their concentration locally, hence increasing the amount available to create said limestone. Limestone origin usually involves energy spending of some sort. Silica comes from other preexisting rocks as on the earth's crust it one of the most abundant molecules.
I haven't read the articles you mention so i'll have to check on that later as i'm strapped for time...
Well, i went through the articles in a albeit quick way and indeed that poses some challenges if you consider the impact hypothesis but i would say that the material that flew to space certainly have enough molecular water in them to explain this. And even if it didn't, in the early moon's high energy beginnings there could have been neutralization reactions with water forming. It is almost unconceivable that it had not happen. Most of that water was then lost of course. Some remained.
"Recent models of this process predict that the orbit of the newly formed Moon should be in, or very near, the Earth's equatorial plane. This prediction, however, is at odds with the known history of the lunar orbit... The cause of this initial inclination has been a mystery for over 30 years, as most dynamical processes (such as those that act to flatten Saturn's rings) will tend to decrease orbital inclinations." (Ward & Canup)
Well, i don't know about how these "recent models" are meant to work so i can't really comment on that. However cycling of the orbit even to this day should be a hint that predicting a zero inclination orbit is wrong, even when you don't know what causes the inclination.
"The evolution of the lunar semimajor axis presents the well-known time scale problem; the lunar orbit collapses only a little over a billion years ago" [p. 1954]...
"We are presented with an unresolved mystery. All theories of lunar formation require that formation take place in the equator plane, yet models of tidal evolution do not place the Moon there" [p. 1955].
Jihad Touma & Jack Wisdom, "Evolution of the Earth-Moon System," The Astronomical Journal, November 1994
It looks pretty obvious the models need readjustments or that the demand that formation take place in the equator plane is not correct, what is your point?
Well, every science textbook claims our earth-moon system is billions of years old, but no models prove this. Hence the comment, "the lunar orbit collapses only a little over a billion years ago."
And that doesn't even account for the utter lack of Population III stars (consisting only of hydrogen, helium, and lithium) and dark energy that should be present if a Big Bang occurred. (See "Dark Energy's Demise? New Theory Doesn't Use the Force," Aug 18, 2009)
Oh, now i can see what your line is. We do not need no models to know how old is our earth-moon system. The age of the system is given by radiometric dating, not by simulation models. Even living beings molecular clock dates live (younger than earth) at least with 3.5 billion years. And why would expect population III stars to still be around? Those were the very first stars, massive in mass and went up into supernovas long ago. What we have of them is indirect proof of their existance.
And while "star forming regions" are often referenced, no one has ever actually observed a new star forming. Also, why haven't the dust particles near the star not evaporated long before now since there is more than enough heat to vaporize them?
Finally, what are your thoughts about dark energy? If the Big Bang occurred, where is it?
Before i answer your questions i would like to ask you if is there a limit in number to said questions answered in a satisfactory way from which you will start to realize that we are in fact in a very old universe. All these questions reveal a lack of basic scientific knowledge and I'm beginning to think the only thing behind them is religion. I'll now ask myself one question. How can you be so skeptic about everything except about what is obviously a fairy tale for adults.
Also, I can hardly wait to see what you say about dark energy. You've avoided the question for several postings and I'm beginning to think you have "a lack of basic scientific knowledge" as to where it may be. But don't worry; you're not alone as no one knows where it is.
enough time to talk about it because it is a complicated subject and unlike you fundies i actually have a responsibility to answer in a truthful and correct way. What makes dark matter different from regular matter is our inability to detect any sort of radiation emission from it. It is hypothetical because we can calculate its gravitational pull on big scale astronomy normal matter. It eventually can even be ruled out as non-existant and other explanations can arise. But what would that prove?
Scientist just recently discovered exoplanet WASP-17b even though it's twice the size of Jupiter. Heck, NASA just found water on the moon... and they've been studying it for decades!! But amazingly you are confident there is no God. How can you be so certain? Have you searched the entire universe and found Him not to be there?
And for the record, I did attend a public skhool and university, and am very familiar with evolution and the Big Bang. They just don't add up for me.
whatsoever backing it up? Ain't that the brand of a fundie?
And Nasa has not "just found" water on the moon, they have its existance proven a long time ago. Only the mainstream media is just catching up.
And about this god hypothesis it is unscientific as there is no proof science could present that there is no god. You fundies would always ditch the physical existence and say god is not of this universe or some meaningless mumbo jumbo like that.
But yet, it must be billions of years old because that's what all the textbooks tell us, right? Oh, never mind that all the models indicate that's impossible. Yet, because I ask questions, you call me a "fundie" and say "I'm beginning to think the only thing behind them is religion." I always love when someone's long-held beliefs are challenged, they (you) instantly revert to name calling and religion bashing.
a big daddy from the sky doing it all. How about you ask yourself some hard questions too? You seem to have trouble grasping that putting a god into explanations makes things unworkable because then you must explain what god is and how does he interfere with the Universe. This when you can't even produce a shred of evidence that there is such a thing as a god. How can you be skeptic about dark matter just because we only have indirect evidence of it and believe in something that has no evidence
I thought scientific debate was about asking questions to difficult issues - or challenging theories, especially if they haven't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. After all, there are several competing theories about the formation of the moon, and each have tremendous difficulties. I like what David Hughes said about the moon, "[B]ut astronomers still have to admit shamefacedly that they have little idea as to where it came from." (The Open Question in Selenology, Nature, 1987)
Challenging theories is not making questions that have been answered times and times again. Like your questions, they are basically born out of unwillingness to research it further. You find a question you think it is hard to answer and instead of trying to work it out yourself you somehow convince yourself "scientists don't know" and that proves that "there must be a god behind it all". Even if all current theories are wrong that only means we haven't found the right one. Not that there was...
What verifiable 'scientific evidence' do you have to support such a truth claim? You must also agree with professor Provine when he said:
"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear... There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death... There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either."
Modern evolutionary biology says nothing about the existence of a god or gods, it works however without the need for goal directed forces. It is also mute about the rest of the subjects you mentioned. But i absolutely agree with them.
And i don't have to present no proof at all, unless you want me to prove that santa claus doesn't exist either. There is nothing that can prove an open unverifiable universe negative. And i'm not avoiding the subject of dark matter, but usually don't have
"Challenging theories is not making questions that have been answered times and times again"
Oh, you mean like the impressive listing of major "Unresolved Problems in Physics" on Wikipedia? (Includes Baryon asymmetry)
And you're right; I cannot prove the existence of God. Nor can I scientifically prove how Jesus raised Lazarus or Himself from the dead. I believe from faith (Hebrews 11:1-6), which is what you must also do since science has not found the right explanations yet.
I know this is not my discussion, but you cannot use faith as a reason for belief. Faith comes after initial belief. Otherwise you might as well have faith in absolutely anything.
Also, just because science does not have all the answers does not mean your particular god exists. The answers could be in the form of almost anything. Your god is just one of countless possible explanations.
Actually, "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17).
"Also, just because science does not have all the answers does not mean your particular god exists."
That's why there are so thousands of religions. So how do I know Christ is the only way - faith alone. Jesus said, "'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me'" (John 14:6). And you can either believe or reject this claim.
So you know your religion is the correct one because there are these verses in your holy book that say that your god is the only true god? Geez, how original, no other religion claims that, oh wait... They all do.
Were you to be born in the middle east you would be praising Allah. It is only a matter of which kind of religious parents you had.
"Were you to be born in the middle east you would be praising Allah"
First, where was Jesus from?
And second, why do people in the Middle East (or China and North Korea) convert to Christianity - even under the threat of severe persecution or death? I don't discount that there is a strong cultural pull in those regions, but that's still no match for God's sovereign grace. Ephesians 1:4 says that "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world." Location is not a factor.
I could be cynical and say they convert because they're stupid, but instead i'm just going to point out that in every aspect of life some people like to be different because they can feel "special" that way. One much better question you have to ask yourself is that if your relligion is the "correct" one and there is some sort of divine inspiration that makes you be a christian why is your god apparently screwing up all the other guys in other religions.
Why do you believe what the bible says? If it was not on faith alone, because there are plenty of other books with a similar message. Something must have initially convinced you-probably your parents during your childhood-that the bible is superior to the countless other books of the sort. Otherwise how do you know where to put your faith?
Quotes from the bible are not evidence for your religion, because you must first believe the bible is true to accept them.
Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
"[Jesus] said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter answered and said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.'" (Matthew 16:15-17)
Correct! Romans 3:11 tells us, "There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God." So how was I "convinced," as you put it? Jesus said, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him..." (John 6:44) He also said, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you..." (John 15:16)
And that is also how people in Muslim or atheistic countries come to believe in Christ.
Again, bible verses do little to help your case as they are nothing that special to a non-christian like me.
How do you explain people like Cat Stevens (now called Yusuf Islam) who convert from christianity? There are millions who have done so-I have seen it myself.
"How do you explain people like Cat Stevens... who convert from christianity?"
This is nothing new as lots of people renounce their faith. Same as with Judas who had spent three years with Christ, and even preached in His name... "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us." (1 John 2:19)
First, you never answered my questions about where Jesus was from. Is the Bible a Western religion, or from the Middle East?
"bible verses do little to help your case as they are nothing that special to a non-christian like me."
I know. "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)
The Bible is a compilation of books from Roman-occupied Palaestinium. They were heavily edited by the Romans to suit their needs (ie. Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's).
I don't think that question was originally addressed to me, though. It was Costa who said that.
Sorry so long, but finally - that passage in I John says the same thing as what Jesus taught in the Upper Room, "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:6) Neither passage indicates that a person was truly saved, but then lost their salvation. (See Matthew 7:21-23).
"Manuscript" simply means something written by hand. If that is quite literally all we mean here, then there must be millions of the Bible, Qur'an, Ramayana and many more books. I really need a more specific definition of Manuscript.
As to the information you have: do you have a source? I would like to check it myself.
If evolution's true, we can't truly have real understanding of anything since we dont know if real understanding survived better than false understanding.
But Dawkins claims to better understand reality than theists. What special traits give him this superior knowledge? If nature is all there is, and there's no purpose or meaning, then Dawkins' thoughts are just empty, purposeless discussion with no ultimate value. Isn't his "knowledge" just the outworking of atomic interactions?
My sources include whatever reliable information I can find at the time. I don't think I've yet stated anything requiring a source-if I have, then ask for a source and I will provide.
What is your position on evolution? I am unsure whether to bombard you with scientific evidence for it or show how a god isn't necessary.
Now what are your thoughts about the segment on 60 Minutes this week where Lesley Stahl interviewed Jack Horner about his fossil findings and plans to create a dino-chicken? They also showed the soft tissue they found in a T-rex fossil that was so well preserved the blood vessels were still elastic! Now how is it possible for that tissue (even if it's only biofilm) to survive for 65+ million years without drying out?
(Also see "Ink found in Jurassic-era squid," BBC, August 19, 2009)
Again, if evolution is true, we can't truly have real understanding of anything since we don't know if real understanding survived better than false understanding. What's your proof?
As for evolution, I believe in micro (many different types of finches and dogs - but all still finches and dogs), not macro (dinos-to-birds). Speaking of which, see "Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links" (ScienceDaily, Jun 9, 2009).
Macroevolution is literally exactly the same as microevolution. Literally the only difference is time-scale. This is important. Look at dogs. In under 200,000 years, they have gone from wolves to all the many different breeds of dogs we have today. Just think. What will dogs' descendants be like 200,000 years from now? Perhaps they will be unable to breed with wolves and still produce fertile children. If so, then they have become a new species, and Macroevolution has taken place.
Why can we not have an understanding about something, simply because we evolved? We have very well-developed senses and intuition. Natural selection would favour individuals with a capacity for true understanding, and so we have developed ways of determining it.
We can't KNOW whether anything is true. We don't KNOW that gravity is real, or that germs cause diseases. But we can be pretty sure, based on the evidence.
I did not see 60 minutes, as I do not live in the US. However, I do know a bit about the topic.
The Dino-chicken would actually be indistinguishable from a dinosaur. The only difference would be it's mitochondrial DNA, which must come form the chicken.
As for the soft tissue: I do not think anyone yet knows how it was preserved so well. It is perfectly okay to say "I don't know" and wait for the answers to come.
The full transcript is on CSB(dot)com - "Scientist's Dino Findings Making Waves"
"[Schweitzer] showed us video she took under the microscope. It looked like the soft tissue she would have expected to find if it had been modern bone... And yet in sample after sample... The things Schweitzer was finding inside dinosaur bones - blood vessels, and even what seemed to be intact cells."
Also see, "Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery" (Discover, April 27, 2006). What makes it so "dangerous"?
The article in Discover says, "Once, when she was working with a T.rex skeleton harvested from Hell Creek, she noticed that the fossil exuded a distinctly organic odor. 'It smelled just like one of the cadavers we had in the lab who had been treated with chemotherapy before he died,' she says... To most old-line paleontologists, the smell of death didn't even register. To Schweitzer, it meant that traces of life might still cling to those bones."
See Ron Rhodes' article, "Manuscript Support for the Bible's Reliability"
And who is your source? Dawkins? If humans are the end result of non-teleological Darwinian evolution, according to Dawkins, then certainly their thoughts are no better or worse than any other thoughts, right? After all, wasn't their education given by other evolved humans?
Cont. "These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed... There are conflicts between present archeological evidence and historical reports that may result from a lack of information on our part or from misunderstandings or mistakes by the ancient writers."
And while the Smithsonian disagrees with the flood account (no surprise), they validate the Bible's historical accuracy:
"In short, it is impossible to verify the actual events recorded in the Biblical account of the flood. On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, ARE AS ACCURATE historical documents as any that we have from antiquity AND ARE IN FACT MORE ACCURATE than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories..."
There are 24,000 manuscripts of the N.T. What other ancient book has as many?
In addition, there are over 86,000 quotations of the N.T. by the early church fathers. There are also N.T. quotations in thousands of early church worship books.
There are enough quotes from early church fathers that even if we did not have a single copy of the Bible, we could still reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire N.T. from material written within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ.
Well, there isn't a single christian that has not had another christian evangelizing him. And the overwhelming majority of christians on those places are from christian families or were under the influence of western preachers.
"And why are christians converting to other religions too when they face prejudice in christian countries."
1 John 2:19 says, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us."
This is like Judas who was with Christ for three years, but never believed in Him (see John 3:36).
Another quite possible interpretation is that judas was doing jesus biding of course. Someone had to turn him in to be sacrificed for humanity... But i'll leave that parabole discussion for you theists.
Evidence that we have morally self-determining free choice is that Scripture and common moral wisdom both indicate that praise and blame make no sense unless those praised or blamed were free to do otherwise. Why eulogize Mother Teresa and vilify Hitler, if they couldn't help doing what they did? Why blame Adolf Eichmann and praise Martin Luther King, if they had no free choice? Yet they did, and we do. The Bible says that God "will render to each one according to his deeds" (Romans 2:6).
When people say the Bible was written by men, I always point to the conflict between "free will" and "divine election" as this issue is nowhere resolved in Scripture. We have passages like John 3:16 which says, "whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." But then John 15:16 says, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you..." Surely such a dilemma would have been resolved if man truly wrote the Bible.
"And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: 'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!' But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, 'LORD, who has believed our report?'"
Verse 17 is key: "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
"Well, there isn't a single christian that has not had another christian evangelizing him."
Actually, there was Paul who was converted on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9). But for sure that is a very rare event!
Romans 10:14 - 17 says, "How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?...
Seriously? You don't think finding organic tissue in such an 'old' fossil is big news?
Jeffrey Bada said, "Bones absorb uranium and thorium like crazy. You've got an internal dose that will WIPE OUT biomolecules" ("Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery," Discover, April 27, 2006).
With regard to your insects trapped in amber comparison, insects do not have bones that contain uranium and thorium.
Bones absorb those elements if they are present in the enviroment in relative amounts for that to happen. Plus the effect is much more visible in long life creatures, not in short lived animals like a salamander. And radiation doesn't necessarily "wipe out" biomolecules. Comets wich are always exposed to the solar wind have been confirmed to have adenin for example. And they have been roaming around for a long time.
The age of comets is largely variable. Basically they vary in constituition according to their age and you will not need to compare to the age of the universe because they are constantly forming in the universe's history. Our entire solar system is much younger than the universe itself. look into this: "Determining the ages of comets from the fraction of crystalline dust", p 275-276 v 406 Nature, 20 July 2000.
The problem with crystalline dust (Oort Cloud Theory) is that the ratio of heavy hydrogen to normal hydrogen in comets should be typical of the rest of the solar system; instead, it is 20 times greater.
Deuterium's values vary in our solar system. Your creationist buddies mangled the article were this was mentioned. The original basically said that the earth's oceans could be explained by comet impact only (they cannot, most water came from planet differentiation). The "20 times" refers to a solar system average, which is of course subject to variation and in which comets are themselves included.
Actually, they are in a steady decline... "Because stars consume large amounts of it [deuterium] and no process creates it in significant amounts, the amount of deuterium in the universe declines steadily." (Ron Cowen, "Too Much Deuterium?: A Chemical MYSTERY in the Milky Way," Science News, September 2006).
In the vacuum of space, dust particles coated with ice would have tiny, relatively fixed spheres of influence, so they would not capture each other to form larger clusters (comets). Instead, rare collisions would scatter particles held together by their weak mutual gravity. No experimental evidence shows how, in the vacuum of space and in less than several billion years, billions of tons of particles can merge into even one comet - much less 1012 comets. How did interstellar dust form?
Researchers recalculate age of Solar System (PhysOrg, Jan 4, 2010)
"Any deviation from this assumed value causes miscalculation in the determined Pb-Pb age of a sample, meaning that the age of the Solar System could be MISCALCULATED by as much as SEVERAL MILLION YEARS...'This variation implies SUBSTANTIAL UNCERTAINTIES in the ages previously determined by Pb-Pb dating of CAIs,' explains Brennecka."
Guess it's hard to date an event that wasn't directly observed (Scientific Method, Step 2).
now that old "quote out of context" criationist BS is just laughable. Yes, miscalculation of isotopes can lead to an error of several million years. So what? For you is it that important that the solar system is 5,1 billion years instead of 5 billion years old? Does that help your case that much? Isotope dating always have an uncertainty percentage that goes to experimental limitations. So what? Do you have a better dating method? I would like to know if you do.
"Evolution caught in the act: Scientists measure how quickly genomes change" (PhysOrg, January 1, 2010)
"Everything that is genetically possible is being tested in a very short period," adds Lynch, emphasizing a very different view than perhaps the one we are all most familiar with: that evolution reveals itself only after THOUSANDS, if not millions of years."
Yes, thousands. Possibly in some very special instances centuries, or in case of very fast reproduction cycles (like bacteria) decades. There are several expe
The song is creepy
InnocentBearz 2 weeks ago
Moons orbiting the moon? I knew the Proto Earth had temporary rings.
TheBlobster1212 1 month ago
Don't see why the music is such a problem for people. It's got kind of a 60s star trek type sound to it along with some jazzy wierdness and some beats that are hard to follow. Almost like you're watching a video about something in space, where lots of unpredictable random things are happening but where the big picture is coherent. hmmm
fookfocketyfookfook 2 months ago
I didn't know there were so many DnB haters out there.
Losers.
phuturephunk 3 months ago
shitty music.....thumbs down
matthewbbb1978 4 months ago
Comment removed
fuzzywuzy 7 months ago
what exactly is kepler time?
kafin 7 months ago
What ugly music for such a beautiful video
PutItAway101 7 months ago
the music is horrible... the animation is great...
lomaisnatural 7 months ago 5
Thank god for the mute button.
Strykenine 10 months ago 10
Not so sure about the science lesson... the moon is a spherical object, which means it was formed in heat whilst spinning (centrifugal force). However, there is nearly no rotation in the lunar orbit, so what made it stop spinning?
Anyway, loved the music, which fits the video quite well! Who's it by?
ShaunnyBwoy 10 months ago
@ShaunnyBwoy Interactions with the earth's gravity slowed the moon's rotation time to equal its time to orbit the earth. Too longwinded to cover in a youtube comment, but look up Tidal Locking on wikipedia
PutItAway101 7 months ago
is the music Danny Breaks?
sherileepoetcmt 10 months ago
That collison is to much. It wasnt a direct impact like that. It was a glancing blow. I understand why the video i slike this but it makes it look silly and makes the thoery look stupid also. As far as we can tell it did not happen like this but the second part is correct.
midfielderlegend 11 months ago
Hardcore planetary body formation!!!
quatfro 11 months ago
BEST MUSIC EVER. lol i converted it aswell
ManEatingLunchBox 1 year ago
@ManEatingLunchBox IKR!!! XDD We watched this today in my astronomy class, and I was like "MUST FIND THIS & GET THE MUSICCCC. O.O"
Riversfirefly 1 year ago
@Riversfirefly rofl same here, our science teacher warned us about the song.
i was dying laughing
ManEatingLunchBox 1 year ago
@ManEatingLunchBox Hahaha. XD I was just dying at how AWESOME it was. ;DD
Riversfirefly 1 year ago
Ever notice how astronomers always use these cosmic collisions to explain away just about everything. Mercury's inexplicable iron core, Uranus' unusual tilt, Venus' counterintuitive rotation, Mars' thin atmosphere, the missing and presumed destroyed planet between Mars and Jupiter, and even dinosaur extinction on Earth are all attributed to an asteroid or other large object crashing into them and altering things forever. Give it a rest guys.
theabiotictheory 1 year ago
@theabiotictheory
these collisions happen everywhere, all the time
lrn2space
angi223344 1 year ago
@angi223344 I'm not disputing that asteroids crash into things, what astronomers seem to do however is continuously use these cosmic collisions as a sort of a magic wand whenever they encounter something that threatens their delicately constructed models. After awhile the whole thing becomes absurd.
theabiotictheory 1 year ago
@theabiotictheory Collisions are used because they are part of the Nebular Theory ... you can't fault a theory for using one of it's main tenets. That would be similar to getting mad at Fench Fry makers because they all use potatoes.
jasonlonon 4 months ago
@jasonlonon The Nebular Hypothesis has already been falsified by NASA.
theabiotictheory 4 months ago
What does mean Keppler time?
Jimonique84 1 year ago
nice video.. annoying music...
trueguinnessking 1 year ago
I liked the music. Where can I find that track?
ewmegoolies 1 year ago
I heard recently that the moon did not form naturally... Would that theory (involving the idea that the moon was placed there) indeed make the most sense?
bigb47 1 year ago
@bigb47 Yep, I put it there.
ektrules 1 year ago
Such a fantastic unbiased and absolutely impossible idea doesn't even deserve to be taken under any scientific consideration in the first place. This shit is based on an arbitrary proposition and belief which stands against scientific core principles. Therefore this proposition is false and flawed from its very starting point up to the end of this hollow dry and disgracefully dumb speculation.
TroyIII 1 year ago
This is the dumbest proposition I ever heard, and might never hear again for as long as I live. This silliness doesn't even qualify for a scientific hypothesis. One thing it qualifies for is a dump of nonscientific ignorant fool so ignorant and arrogant to have the audacity of presenting such a nonsense as a scientific hypothesis at first place.
TroyIII 1 year ago
ha ha ha..I love it when the religious nuts try to argue a scientific point based on their regilious believes. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the theory depicted in this video is correct.
If the moon didn't rotate we would be able to see the darkside. If you don't believe that try to get one ball move in a circle around another one so that only one side faces the one in the middle.
The Earth and Moon are tidally locked. Do a search for 'tidal locking' on Wikipedia.
Scumbag2 1 year ago
@Scumbag2
"I love it when the religious nuts try to argue a scientific point based on their regilious believes."
You really should read, "Taking Science on Faith" by Paul Davies (NYT, Novmember 2007). I just love the last line, "But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus." (Oh, did I mention Davies is an atheist?)
Speaking of Wiki, see "Horizon Problem" and "List of unsolved problems in physics"
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1 Paul Davies has been criticised by many on his views about religion and science and your quote is nothing more than his opinion.
Science has never claimed to have the answers to everything at any point in time and it openly admits that. 100 years ago we did not know how the Sun produced its energy, now we do. In 100 years (or quite possibly a lot sooner) that list of unsolved problems in physics will be a lot shorter.
Scumbag2 1 year ago
@Scumbag2
"In 100 years (or quite possibly a lot sooner) that list of unsolved problems in physics will be a lot shorter."
Maybe. And what about that pesky "Horizon Problem"?
Wiki says, "Quantum physics demands that this initial temperature difference should have actually existed at the Big Bang due to the uncertainty principle, such that there is no way that the universe could have formed with precisely the same properties everywhere. The magnitude of this problem is quite large."
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1 I think I might go bang my head against this wall over here as I suspect I will get a bit further with it. You should have a good look at religious history as it is full of skulduggery and persecution of those who dared to speak the truth.
Scumbag2 1 year ago
@Scumbag2
"You should have a good look at religious history as it is full of skulduggery and persecution of those who dared to speak the truth."
I agree. So what's your point? (BTW, I am not Catholic)
Now how does attempting to divert my attention to religious history resolve the "Horizon Problem" currently challenging the entire theory of the Big Bang? It was a nice try, but now please provide your thoughts about the Horizon Problem.
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1 Have a look at Inflation Theory.
I hope you find what you are looking for as I am not going to waste any more of my time on this...my head hurts from banging it on the wall.
BTW my point was that religion has done more harm than good to human development . It has always tried to halt the advancement of science in fear of people finding the truth and/or reducing its control over people.
Scumbag2 1 year ago
@Scumbag2 3 of 3
Now please tell me (since you are clearly PWNED with the Horizon Problem, and hence your incessant focus on religion) why origins is important. Who cares, right? After all, we know that we are here right now, so why does it matter how it all started?
BTW, is origins, a one-time event which took place in the past, observable, testable and falsifiable? Nope! Looks like you're back to Paul Davies... taking science on faith! That must be such a shallow feeling for you!
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@Scumbag2 2 of 3
Rather, it's the environmentalists who tell us to abandon the advancements of science (e.g., planes, cars, genetically modified foods, air conditioning, etc.) because they are supposedly destroying the earth.
What a joke!!
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@Scumbag2 1 of 3
LOL! Inflation Theory = emperor's new clothes. Please tell me how it works.
BTW, even Guth doesn't know how it works. That's why it's STILL a "problem"! ("Guth's Grand Guess," Discover Magazine, April 2002).
If you think because I'm a Christian that I'm against science, you are incorrect! Science (e.g., Hubble telescope) helps me discover the wonder of everything God has made. In fact, I just had laser surgery on my retina last week! Science in action!!
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
Earth's moon is the only moon in our solar system that doesn't rotate. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Naturally occurring spheres in a vacuum rotate naturally. Yet earth's moon doesn't rotate at all. Why? Because it's an artificial construct under its own power. Who put it there and why I haven't a clue. But I'd be willing to bet my left nut that it's not a naturally occurring body.
AceOfHeart2012 1 year ago
Respond to this video... Then say goodbye to your left nut...., you nut. The moon rotates!! We see the same side because of the moon's orbit around the earth. If the moon were to stop in it's orbit we would see it's rotation. You need to do a lot of reading my friend...., seriously!
libraryquiet 1 year ago
@libraryquiet Control issues?
AceOfHeart2012 1 year ago
@libraryquiet The Bible is nothing more than Pagan/Norse/Greek/Roman Mythology mashed together over several centuries. Humans are the only species aware of one's own impending demise, so we invented "afterlife" as a result of that fear. Pure narcissism. This planet can get wiped out by interstellar gamma rays from a supernova, and the universe will continue on like we never existed in the first place. This universe is roughly 15 BILLION years old, we've been around for a mere hundred thousand.
alucard1931 1 year ago
@alucard1931 Right on brother. It's always good to come across someone with a sensible outlook and awareness of the knowledge we've gained through scientific breakthroughs, advancements and discoveries.
libraryquiet 1 year ago
Yeah, awesome moon-forming background music. Also, though I have know idea how the genetics debate got started, I feel I need to give this fact. We are 70% the same as a banana. Source: random professor at a conference my friend's dad attended.
DameUta 1 year ago
that was a cool sim!
it seems that you magnified the sizes of the objects for the purpose of the video? what was the factor of magnification?
abbs219 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is not working, because of its lack of explanation of the relationship between the moon, earth and the plane of the ecliptic. The most sensible, coherent and in-depth hypothesis on the formation of the moon is in the Impact And Exit Event hypothesis. See more at theimpactandexitevent com
..It makes perfect sense to me...
Lallybunch 1 year ago
This is perfectly explained in the bible..
calvingmail 1 year ago
the asteroid theia
823rohan 1 year ago
oh dear, another pretend christian makes claims he cannot understand ..
oh google Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery," Thinks all young creationist adherents are fu*king crazy. And then the creationist take an arguement against there cause and use it to try to promote their mystical thinking (bada's conclusions from radiativity). You AA32 are a lying shit...
silverspirit2001 2 years ago
How do you explain the fact that 30 million years ago, the surface of the Sun would have touched Earths present orbit? While the earth was busy forming the moon, it would have been submerged in burning hydrogen and helium. Also, nature its self is irrefutable evidence for something beyond nature, because of the law of cause and effect. So if there is a God, it makes total sense to at least consider the possibility that he created the moon, don't you think?
SOTHvids 2 years ago
"How do you explain the fact that 30 million years ago, the surface of the Sun would have touched Earths present orbit?"
LOL... We don't have to explain what nobody with scientic credibility is saying. where did you got the idea that the sun was that much bigger in the past?
costa200 2 years ago
that's wild.
Displaysac90 2 years ago
this is like on of those things you used to make on the amiga 600 with a prodigy soundtrack using octomed ah those were the days....
wizzmarkie 2 years ago
The particles were moving fast enough to keep them in orbit, just as the space shuttle and skylab have to move fast enough to keep them in orbit. Objects further away don't have to move as fast to stay in orbit due to weaker gravity--Mercury moves much more quickly around the sun than does Earth.
zzscotty 2 years ago
Wouldn't most of the debris just come hurtling back to the earth be cause of gravity?Why would it stay in orbit?The moon is further away and biger so wouldn't gavity atract the smaller pieces because they are closer and smaller?Corect me if I'm rong,I just want to learn.
yonama2 2 years ago
I'm sure some of it does but since the rock's trajectory is outward it probably would expel into space or slow down due to Earths gravity pull but it won't make it slap back. It would act as like the many satillites orbiting the Earth right now. Except there would be a whole wack of them colliding with each other. Hense formations of larger ones if the conditions are hot enough. Which i suppose they were.
silenceisdead 2 years ago
Remember that this simulation merely carried out the basic physical law that two objects attract each other with a gravitational force proportional to the product of their masses divided by the square of the distance between them. It also implements Newton's three laws of motion. So if the simulation is accurate, and it seems to be, then what happens is by definition quite plausible. It closely matches what we see in the real world, so it's a good theory. That's science.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
(1 of 4)
Why did only one moon form instead of many smaller moons?
"We conclude that an earth system with multiple moons is the final result unless some particularly severe constraints on initial conditions in the disk are met." Robin M. Canup and Larry W. Esposito, "Accretion of the Moon from an Impact-Generated Disk," Icarus, Vol. 119, February 1996, p. 427
Also, wouldn't the impact either be too slight to form our large Moon, or so violent the Earth would end up spinning too fast?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago 2
The energy in the collision has nothing to do with the rate things spin afterward. No matter how violent the collision, the total angular momentum of all the pieces stays exactly the same. This would depend largely on the exact path the impactor took toward the earth, which could either increase or decrease the angular momentum of the earth.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
Google these two articles - not from Creationist websites:
"New water find challenges theories of Moon's formation" (Telegraph, 2008)
"Glass Beads from Moon Hint of Watery Past" (NPR, 2008)
The NPR article says, "This is a problem for the giant impact theory, says Hauri. 'It's hard to imagine a scenario in which a giant impact melts, completely, the moon, and at the same time allows it to hold onto its water,' he says. 'That's a really, really difficult knot to untie.'"
Oops!
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Just the kind of puzzle that scientists love to solve. There will probably be a modification of the giant impact theory to account for this. Maybe the water came from cometary impacts after the moon formed?
We have the giant impact theory because the evidence, especially Apollo samples, was inconsistent with all three of the prevalent pre-Apollo theories. This is how science works..collect evidence, rule out incompatible hypotheses, modify existing theories or suggest new ones, repeat.
spambatt 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(2 of 4)
Why doesn't the moon orbit in earth's equatorial plane?
The moon's orbital plane is inclined 18.5-28.5 degrees to the earth's equatorial plane. (The moon's orbital plane precesses between those values over an 18.6-year cycle.) This is a considerable inclination when recognizing that the moon possesses 82.9 percent of the angular momentum of the earth-moon system. No other planet-satellite system comes close to this amount.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
(2 of 4)
Why doesn't the moon orbit in earth's equatorial plane?
The moon's orbital plane is inclined 18.5 - 28.5 degrees to the earth's equatorial plane. (The moon's orbital plane precesses between those values over an 18.6-year cycle.) This is a considerable inclination when recognizing that the moon possesses 82.9% of the angular momentum of the earth-moon system. No other planet-satellite system comes close to this amount.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Why SHOULD the moon orbit in the earth's equatorial plane? Most of its angular momentum probably came from the Mars-sized impactor orbiting the sun. This object, like most large objects, have roughly the same orbital plane; the earth's plane is the ecliptic. So you'd expect the moon to orbit roughly in the ecliptic -- and it does! So I think that's evidence for the giant impact theory.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
(3 of 4)
If small particles splashed from earth, they would have completely melted, allowing any water inside them to escape into the vacuum of space. But Apollo astronauts found tiny glass beads on the moon that had erupted as molten material from inside the moon but had dissolved water inside.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
(4 of 4)
"This is a problem for the giant impact theory, says Hauri. 'Its hard to imagine a scenario in which a giant impact melts, completely, the moon, and at the same time allows it to hold onto its water,' he says. 'That's a really, really difficult knot to untie.'"
Nell Greenfieldboyce, quoting Erik Hauri, Glass Beads from Moon Hint of Watery Past," 12 July 2008
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
The moon is there because GAWD put it there. Fucking duh.
dudejohnny 2 years ago
Do you know the Drop-Moon Theory ?
BuhoVision 2 years ago
horrible music
belgvr 2 years ago
Are you kidding me? The proto-planet hits Earth, and then they drop a phat beat to create the goddamn moon.
Hiyama420 2 years ago
i like the phat beat yo ;)
MizPark 2 years ago
3) Things change drastically over the next 4.2 billion years, and then here comes an organism that is us, that realizes these things, and here we are on you tube bitching about stupid shit.
mynameisnotanumber 2 years ago 2
This animation is not very plausible but the concept is.
The hubble captured several dozen galaxay collisions, and there is a spin off of debris before they impact. Imagine a golf ball and a billiard ball, both turning, one slightly more dense already, causing the imbalance of attraction.
mynameisnotanumber 2 years ago
Comment removed
mynameisnotanumber 2 years ago
what happened was that these two balls attracted, and like attracts like, so all of the heavy material became concentrated like a lava lamp in a horribly disastrous and epic collision where materials were shared as molten hot blobs, shooting debris everywhere, and finally one settled into a lighter ball and the other separated into more complex water wet system with plate tectonics and a constantly evolving biota assortment.
mynameisnotanumber 2 years ago
I dont buy it, so we have other planets with moons and ours is the only one made from a collision... How about this,,,,its just another blob of material that got trapped in our gravity...
bulldaawg 2 years ago
Maybe this is a stupid question, but will Saturn's ring eventually turn into another one of its moons?
vancityeagle 2 years ago
They've discovered that these rings are mostly water. most of it being ejected from one of the moons
bulldaawg 2 years ago
Did you know that jewish sages say that in the torah is written ..."the lord threw a stone to the earth" in the creation of this world, thats the "mountain" of his holly place (not the temple mount) but a "mountain" beneath the land of Israel
pianeroman 2 years ago
That's a fascinating equation! what the fuck does it mean?
mcdade10 3 years ago
It didn't make any sense to me.
You show us an imminent impact of two huge planets.
Then, the next moment we are watching an accretion disk forming around a huge solid planet???
What happened to the laws of physics?
citizenschallenge 3 years ago
the smaller planet's impact caused particles to be shot out all around the earth. These particles then aggregated very slowly at first until a sufficient gravitational difference was developed between some of them as they grew larger. this then caused a chain reaction resulting in our current moon.
Luigi84289 3 years ago
It's not plausible at all. Think about this. They say they're about the same age (the moon and the earth). But the hypothesis suggests that earth was already there, a rock was there, they collided, earth remained round for some reason, and moon formed after a long time because of the debris. If that's the case, how can the moon and earth be about the same age if it was formed later?
Antilli 3 years ago
Your confusing things. Earth and what would be the moon were formed at the same time as the gas particles in the great gas cloud that formed the solar system coalesced and it is believed that the smaller body trailed behind the earth until it collided causing the reaction.
Luigi84289 3 years ago
O.o That doesn't seem logical to me at all, but that's just me.
Antilli 3 years ago
Any body larger than a certain size (a few hundred km, depending on composition) will become spherical due to its own gravity. A sphere has the lowest gravitational energy, and systems always tend toward their lowest energy state. Also, forming planets differentiate - the heavy stuff, like iron, sink to the center, again to lower total gravitational energy. So both the moon and earth became differentiated spheres after the collision and accretion of the proto-moon.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
"the heavy stuff, like iron, sink to the center, again to lower total gravitational energy"
Then why do we still find gold (70% denser than lead) near the surface of the earth?
You might say that gold was brought up to the surface by volcanoes. But gold is rarely found near volcanoes.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Well, you certainly don't find MUCH gold, now do you?
Not ALL of it sinks when the planet differentiates. Just most of it. The core is mostly iron, but iron is also common in the crust. Primordial metallic meteorites have many heavy isotopes that are rare in the earth's crust, like iridium, the sign of the asteroid that nailed the dinosaurs 65M years ago.
spambatt 2 years ago
Gold is a rare element at the surface, that's why it is valuable. Obviously the density zoning is not 100% perfect.
costa200 2 years ago
"Gold is a rare element"? True. While the price has risen (thanks to the falling dollar), it must not be too rare since its found virtually everywhere - jewelry, computers, money, etc.
On another note, how were sediments cemented to form rocks? More specifically, how were large quantities of cementing agents (limestone and silica) produced, transported, and deposited, often quite uniformly, between sedimentary grains worldwide?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Compostion of the Earth's Crust:-
Oxide Percent
*************
SiO2 - 59.71, Al2O3 - 15.41, CaO - 4.90 ,MgO - 4.36 ,Na2O - 3.55, FeO - 3.52,
K2O - 2.80, Fe2O3 - 2.63,
H2O - 1.52, TiO2 - 0.60,
P2O5 - 0.22, Total - 99.22 *
All the other constituents occur only in very small quantities, and total less than 1%, which includes the impure form (ore)of Gold(Au)
costa200 2 years ago
Sediments are cemented because they are usually transported by water which already has limestone and/or silica dissolved in it. We can actually see this happening right now. Then the future consolidated rocks go through a process called diagenesis.
costa200 2 years ago
So how did limestone form? And why does it contain more calcium and carbon than the atmosphere, oceans, coal, oil, and living matter combined?
Also, where did all the silica come from to cement sediments?
And since this video is about the formation of the moon, what are your thoughts about these articles I posted a few months ago: "Glass Beads From Moon Hint Of Watery Past" (NPR, July 10, 2008) and "New water find challenges theories of Moon's formation" (Telegraph, 2008).
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Limestone is many formed in result of biological factors. Certain living beings accumulate calcium and carbon and elevate their concentration locally, hence increasing the amount available to create said limestone. Limestone origin usually involves energy spending of some sort. Silica comes from other preexisting rocks as on the earth's crust it one of the most abundant molecules.
I haven't read the articles you mention so i'll have to check on that later as i'm strapped for time...
costa200 2 years ago
Well, i went through the articles in a albeit quick way and indeed that poses some challenges if you consider the impact hypothesis but i would say that the material that flew to space certainly have enough molecular water in them to explain this. And even if it didn't, in the early moon's high energy beginnings there could have been neutralization reactions with water forming. It is almost unconceivable that it had not happen. Most of that water was then lost of course. Some remained.
costa200 2 years ago
2 of 2
"Recent models of this process predict that the orbit of the newly formed Moon should be in, or very near, the Earth's equatorial plane. This prediction, however, is at odds with the known history of the lunar orbit... The cause of this initial inclination has been a mystery for over 30 years, as most dynamical processes (such as those that act to flatten Saturn's rings) will tend to decrease orbital inclinations." (Ward & Canup)
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Well, i don't know about how these "recent models" are meant to work so i can't really comment on that. However cycling of the orbit even to this day should be a hint that predicting a zero inclination orbit is wrong, even when you don't know what causes the inclination.
costa200 2 years ago
"The evolution of the lunar semimajor axis presents the well-known time scale problem; the lunar orbit collapses only a little over a billion years ago" [p. 1954]...
"We are presented with an unresolved mystery. All theories of lunar formation require that formation take place in the equator plane, yet models of tidal evolution do not place the Moon there" [p. 1955].
Jihad Touma & Jack Wisdom, "Evolution of the Earth-Moon System," The Astronomical Journal, November 1994
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
It looks pretty obvious the models need readjustments or that the demand that formation take place in the equator plane is not correct, what is your point?
costa200 2 years ago
"what is your point?"
Well, every science textbook claims our earth-moon system is billions of years old, but no models prove this. Hence the comment, "the lunar orbit collapses only a little over a billion years ago."
And that doesn't even account for the utter lack of Population III stars (consisting only of hydrogen, helium, and lithium) and dark energy that should be present if a Big Bang occurred. (See "Dark Energy's Demise? New Theory Doesn't Use the Force," Aug 18, 2009)
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Oh, now i can see what your line is. We do not need no models to know how old is our earth-moon system. The age of the system is given by radiometric dating, not by simulation models. Even living beings molecular clock dates live (younger than earth) at least with 3.5 billion years. And why would expect population III stars to still be around? Those were the very first stars, massive in mass and went up into supernovas long ago. What we have of them is indirect proof of their existance.
costa200 2 years ago
3 of 3
And while "star forming regions" are often referenced, no one has ever actually observed a new star forming. Also, why haven't the dust particles near the star not evaporated long before now since there is more than enough heat to vaporize them?
Finally, what are your thoughts about dark energy? If the Big Bang occurred, where is it?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Before i answer your questions i would like to ask you if is there a limit in number to said questions answered in a satisfactory way from which you will start to realize that we are in fact in a very old universe. All these questions reveal a lack of basic scientific knowledge and I'm beginning to think the only thing behind them is religion. I'll now ask myself one question. How can you be so skeptic about everything except about what is obviously a fairy tale for adults.
costa200 2 years ago
2 of 2
Also, I can hardly wait to see what you say about dark energy. You've avoided the question for several postings and I'm beginning to think you have "a lack of basic scientific knowledge" as to where it may be. But don't worry; you're not alone as no one knows where it is.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
enough time to talk about it because it is a complicated subject and unlike you fundies i actually have a responsibility to answer in a truthful and correct way. What makes dark matter different from regular matter is our inability to detect any sort of radiation emission from it. It is hypothetical because we can calculate its gravitational pull on big scale astronomy normal matter. It eventually can even be ruled out as non-existant and other explanations can arise. But what would that prove?
costa200 2 years ago
3 of 3
Scientist just recently discovered exoplanet WASP-17b even though it's twice the size of Jupiter. Heck, NASA just found water on the moon... and they've been studying it for decades!! But amazingly you are confident there is no God. How can you be so certain? Have you searched the entire universe and found Him not to be there?
And for the record, I did attend a public skhool and university, and am very familiar with evolution and the Big Bang. They just don't add up for me.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
whatsoever backing it up? Ain't that the brand of a fundie?
And Nasa has not "just found" water on the moon, they have its existance proven a long time ago. Only the mainstream media is just catching up.
And about this god hypothesis it is unscientific as there is no proof science could present that there is no god. You fundies would always ditch the physical existence and say god is not of this universe or some meaningless mumbo jumbo like that.
costa200 2 years ago
2 of 3
But yet, it must be billions of years old because that's what all the textbooks tell us, right? Oh, never mind that all the models indicate that's impossible. Yet, because I ask questions, you call me a "fundie" and say "I'm beginning to think the only thing behind them is religion." I always love when someone's long-held beliefs are challenged, they (you) instantly revert to name calling and religion bashing.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
a big daddy from the sky doing it all. How about you ask yourself some hard questions too? You seem to have trouble grasping that putting a god into explanations makes things unworkable because then you must explain what god is and how does he interfere with the Universe. This when you can't even produce a shred of evidence that there is such a thing as a god. How can you be skeptic about dark matter just because we only have indirect evidence of it and believe in something that has no evidence
costa200 2 years ago
1 of 3
I thought scientific debate was about asking questions to difficult issues - or challenging theories, especially if they haven't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. After all, there are several competing theories about the formation of the moon, and each have tremendous difficulties. I like what David Hughes said about the moon, "[B]ut astronomers still have to admit shamefacedly that they have little idea as to where it came from." (The Open Question in Selenology, Nature, 1987)
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Challenging theories is not making questions that have been answered times and times again. Like your questions, they are basically born out of unwillingness to research it further. You find a question you think it is hard to answer and instead of trying to work it out yourself you somehow convince yourself "scientists don't know" and that proves that "there must be a god behind it all". Even if all current theories are wrong that only means we haven't found the right one. Not that there was...
costa200 2 years ago
1 of 2
"a fairy tale for adults"
What verifiable 'scientific evidence' do you have to support such a truth claim? You must also agree with professor Provine when he said:
"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear... There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death... There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either."
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Modern evolutionary biology says nothing about the existence of a god or gods, it works however without the need for goal directed forces. It is also mute about the rest of the subjects you mentioned. But i absolutely agree with them.
And i don't have to present no proof at all, unless you want me to prove that santa claus doesn't exist either. There is nothing that can prove an open unverifiable universe negative. And i'm not avoiding the subject of dark matter, but usually don't have
costa200 2 years ago
bah dont waste your time costa200, religion is not interested in knowledge.
DemokritosAbdera 2 years ago
I'm not wasting time, i'm just making sure they don't start burning people at the stake again.
costa200 2 years ago
"Challenging theories is not making questions that have been answered times and times again"
Oh, you mean like the impressive listing of major "Unresolved Problems in Physics" on Wikipedia? (Includes Baryon asymmetry)
And you're right; I cannot prove the existence of God. Nor can I scientifically prove how Jesus raised Lazarus or Himself from the dead. I believe from faith (Hebrews 11:1-6), which is what you must also do since science has not found the right explanations yet.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
I know this is not my discussion, but you cannot use faith as a reason for belief. Faith comes after initial belief. Otherwise you might as well have faith in absolutely anything.
Also, just because science does not have all the answers does not mean your particular god exists. The answers could be in the form of almost anything. Your god is just one of countless possible explanations.
nashertheatheist 2 years ago
"Faith comes after initial belief."
Actually, "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17).
"Also, just because science does not have all the answers does not mean your particular god exists."
That's why there are so thousands of religions. So how do I know Christ is the only way - faith alone. Jesus said, "'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me'" (John 14:6). And you can either believe or reject this claim.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
So you know your religion is the correct one because there are these verses in your holy book that say that your god is the only true god? Geez, how original, no other religion claims that, oh wait... They all do.
Were you to be born in the middle east you would be praising Allah. It is only a matter of which kind of religious parents you had.
costa200 2 years ago
"Were you to be born in the middle east you would be praising Allah"
First, where was Jesus from?
And second, why do people in the Middle East (or China and North Korea) convert to Christianity - even under the threat of severe persecution or death? I don't discount that there is a strong cultural pull in those regions, but that's still no match for God's sovereign grace. Ephesians 1:4 says that "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world." Location is not a factor.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
I could be cynical and say they convert because they're stupid, but instead i'm just going to point out that in every aspect of life some people like to be different because they can feel "special" that way. One much better question you have to ask yourself is that if your relligion is the "correct" one and there is some sort of divine inspiration that makes you be a christian why is your god apparently screwing up all the other guys in other religions.
costa200 2 years ago
And why are christians converting to other religions too when they face prejudice in christian countries.
costa200 2 years ago
Why do you believe what the bible says? If it was not on faith alone, because there are plenty of other books with a similar message. Something must have initially convinced you-probably your parents during your childhood-that the bible is superior to the countless other books of the sort. Otherwise how do you know where to put your faith?
Quotes from the bible are not evidence for your religion, because you must first believe the bible is true to accept them.
nashertheatheist 2 years ago
2 of 2
"Why do you believe what the bible says?"
Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
"[Jesus] said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter answered and said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.'" (Matthew 16:15-17)
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
You cannot claim you believe in the bible because of the things it claims about itself.
The Qu'ran, the Arul Nool, the Principia Discordia and many other religious texts all say similar things. The bible has nothing new to add.
nashertheatheist 2 years ago
1 of 2
"Something must have initially convinced you"
Correct! Romans 3:11 tells us, "There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God." So how was I "convinced," as you put it? Jesus said, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him..." (John 6:44) He also said, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you..." (John 15:16)
And that is also how people in Muslim or atheistic countries come to believe in Christ.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Again, bible verses do little to help your case as they are nothing that special to a non-christian like me.
How do you explain people like Cat Stevens (now called Yusuf Islam) who convert from christianity? There are millions who have done so-I have seen it myself.
nashertheatheist 2 years ago
2 of 2
"How do you explain people like Cat Stevens... who convert from christianity?"
This is nothing new as lots of people renounce their faith. Same as with Judas who had spent three years with Christ, and even preached in His name... "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us." (1 John 2:19)
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
What is 1 John 2:19 implying? That converts were not real christians from the start?
It is sometimes difficult to translate the Old English into something comprehensible.
nashertheatheist 2 years ago
1 of 2
First, you never answered my questions about where Jesus was from. Is the Bible a Western religion, or from the Middle East?
"bible verses do little to help your case as they are nothing that special to a non-christian like me."
I know. "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
The Bible is a compilation of books from Roman-occupied Palaestinium. They were heavily edited by the Romans to suit their needs (ie. Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's).
I don't think that question was originally addressed to me, though. It was Costa who said that.
nashertheatheist 2 years ago
4 of 4
Sorry so long, but finally - that passage in I John says the same thing as what Jesus taught in the Upper Room, "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:6) Neither passage indicates that a person was truly saved, but then lost their salvation. (See Matthew 7:21-23).
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
1 of 2:
"Manuscript" simply means something written by hand. If that is quite literally all we mean here, then there must be millions of the Bible, Qur'an, Ramayana and many more books. I really need a more specific definition of Manuscript.
As to the information you have: do you have a source? I would like to check it myself.
nashertheatheist 2 years ago
2 of 2
If evolution's true, we can't truly have real understanding of anything since we dont know if real understanding survived better than false understanding.
But Dawkins claims to better understand reality than theists. What special traits give him this superior knowledge? If nature is all there is, and there's no purpose or meaning, then Dawkins' thoughts are just empty, purposeless discussion with no ultimate value. Isn't his "knowledge" just the outworking of atomic interactions?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
My sources include whatever reliable information I can find at the time. I don't think I've yet stated anything requiring a source-if I have, then ask for a source and I will provide.
What is your position on evolution? I am unsure whether to bombard you with scientific evidence for it or show how a god isn't necessary.
nashertheatheist 2 years ago
2 of 2
Now what are your thoughts about the segment on 60 Minutes this week where Lesley Stahl interviewed Jack Horner about his fossil findings and plans to create a dino-chicken? They also showed the soft tissue they found in a T-rex fossil that was so well preserved the blood vessels were still elastic! Now how is it possible for that tissue (even if it's only biofilm) to survive for 65+ million years without drying out?
(Also see "Ink found in Jurassic-era squid," BBC, August 19, 2009)
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
1 of 2
Again, if evolution is true, we can't truly have real understanding of anything since we don't know if real understanding survived better than false understanding. What's your proof?
As for evolution, I believe in micro (many different types of finches and dogs - but all still finches and dogs), not macro (dinos-to-birds). Speaking of which, see "Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links" (ScienceDaily, Jun 9, 2009).
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
1 of 3:
Macroevolution is literally exactly the same as microevolution. Literally the only difference is time-scale. This is important. Look at dogs. In under 200,000 years, they have gone from wolves to all the many different breeds of dogs we have today. Just think. What will dogs' descendants be like 200,000 years from now? Perhaps they will be unable to breed with wolves and still produce fertile children. If so, then they have become a new species, and Macroevolution has taken place.
nashertheatheist 2 years ago
2 of 3:
About the understanding question:
Why can we not have an understanding about something, simply because we evolved? We have very well-developed senses and intuition. Natural selection would favour individuals with a capacity for true understanding, and so we have developed ways of determining it.
We can't KNOW whether anything is true. We don't KNOW that gravity is real, or that germs cause diseases. But we can be pretty sure, based on the evidence.
nashertheatheist 2 years ago
3 of 3:
I did not see 60 minutes, as I do not live in the US. However, I do know a bit about the topic.
The Dino-chicken would actually be indistinguishable from a dinosaur. The only difference would be it's mitochondrial DNA, which must come form the chicken.
As for the soft tissue: I do not think anyone yet knows how it was preserved so well. It is perfectly okay to say "I don't know" and wait for the answers to come.
nashertheatheist 2 years ago
The full transcript is on CSB(dot)com - "Scientist's Dino Findings Making Waves"
"[Schweitzer] showed us video she took under the microscope. It looked like the soft tissue she would have expected to find if it had been modern bone... And yet in sample after sample... The things Schweitzer was finding inside dinosaur bones - blood vessels, and even what seemed to be intact cells."
Also see, "Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery" (Discover, April 27, 2006). What makes it so "dangerous"?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
cont.
The article in Discover says, "Once, when she was working with a T.rex skeleton harvested from Hell Creek, she noticed that the fossil exuded a distinctly organic odor. 'It smelled just like one of the cadavers we had in the lab who had been treated with chemotherapy before he died,' she says... To most old-line paleontologists, the smell of death didn't even register. To Schweitzer, it meant that traces of life might still cling to those bones."
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
1 of 2
"do you have a source?"
See Ron Rhodes' article, "Manuscript Support for the Bible's Reliability"
And who is your source? Dawkins? If humans are the end result of non-teleological Darwinian evolution, according to Dawkins, then certainly their thoughts are no better or worse than any other thoughts, right? After all, wasn't their education given by other evolved humans?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
3 of 4
Cont. "These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed... There are conflicts between present archeological evidence and historical reports that may result from a lack of information on our part or from misunderstandings or mistakes by the ancient writers."
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
2 of 4
And while the Smithsonian disagrees with the flood account (no surprise), they validate the Bible's historical accuracy:
"In short, it is impossible to verify the actual events recorded in the Biblical account of the flood. On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, ARE AS ACCURATE historical documents as any that we have from antiquity AND ARE IN FACT MORE ACCURATE than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories..."
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
1 of 4
There are 24,000 manuscripts of the N.T. What other ancient book has as many?
In addition, there are over 86,000 quotations of the N.T. by the early church fathers. There are also N.T. quotations in thousands of early church worship books.
There are enough quotes from early church fathers that even if we did not have a single copy of the Bible, we could still reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire N.T. from material written within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Well, there isn't a single christian that has not had another christian evangelizing him. And the overwhelming majority of christians on those places are from christian families or were under the influence of western preachers.
costa200 2 years ago
4 of 4
"And why are christians converting to other religions too when they face prejudice in christian countries."
1 John 2:19 says, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us."
This is like Judas who was with Christ for three years, but never believed in Him (see John 3:36).
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Another quite possible interpretation is that judas was doing jesus biding of course. Someone had to turn him in to be sacrificed for humanity... But i'll leave that parabole discussion for you theists.
costa200 2 years ago
Evidence that we have morally self-determining free choice is that Scripture and common moral wisdom both indicate that praise and blame make no sense unless those praised or blamed were free to do otherwise. Why eulogize Mother Teresa and vilify Hitler, if they couldn't help doing what they did? Why blame Adolf Eichmann and praise Martin Luther King, if they had no free choice? Yet they did, and we do. The Bible says that God "will render to each one according to his deeds" (Romans 2:6).
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
"judas was doing jesus biding of course"
When people say the Bible was written by men, I always point to the conflict between "free will" and "divine election" as this issue is nowhere resolved in Scripture. We have passages like John 3:16 which says, "whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." But then John 15:16 says, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you..." Surely such a dilemma would have been resolved if man truly wrote the Bible.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
3 of 4
"And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: 'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!' But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, 'LORD, who has believed our report?'"
Verse 17 is key: "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
2 of 4
"Well, there isn't a single christian that has not had another christian evangelizing him."
Actually, there was Paul who was converted on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9). But for sure that is a very rare event!
Romans 10:14 - 17 says, "How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?...
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
"Actually, there was Paul who was converted on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9). But for sure that is a very rare event!"
Hmm yeah right... and an independant account of this event would be?
costa200 2 years ago
1 of 4
"What is so wonderous about that?"
Seriously? You don't think finding organic tissue in such an 'old' fossil is big news?
Jeffrey Bada said, "Bones absorb uranium and thorium like crazy. You've got an internal dose that will WIPE OUT biomolecules" ("Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery," Discover, April 27, 2006).
With regard to your insects trapped in amber comparison, insects do not have bones that contain uranium and thorium.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Bones absorb those elements if they are present in the enviroment in relative amounts for that to happen. Plus the effect is much more visible in long life creatures, not in short lived animals like a salamander. And radiation doesn't necessarily "wipe out" biomolecules. Comets wich are always exposed to the solar wind have been confirmed to have adenin for example. And they have been roaming around for a long time.
costa200 2 years ago
"Comets... have been roaming around for a long time."
So exactly how long have they been roaming around? If the universe is billions of years old, why do comets still exist?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
The age of comets is largely variable. Basically they vary in constituition according to their age and you will not need to compare to the age of the universe because they are constantly forming in the universe's history. Our entire solar system is much younger than the universe itself. look into this: "Determining the ages of comets from the fraction of crystalline dust", p 275-276 v 406 Nature, 20 July 2000.
costa200 2 years ago
The problem with crystalline dust (Oort Cloud Theory) is that the ratio of heavy hydrogen to normal hydrogen in comets should be typical of the rest of the solar system; instead, it is 20 times greater.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Deuterium's values vary in our solar system. Your creationist buddies mangled the article were this was mentioned. The original basically said that the earth's oceans could be explained by comet impact only (they cannot, most water came from planet differentiation). The "20 times" refers to a solar system average, which is of course subject to variation and in which comets are themselves included.
costa200 2 years ago
"Deuterium's values vary in our solar system."
Actually, they are in a steady decline... "Because stars consume large amounts of it [deuterium] and no process creates it in significant amounts, the amount of deuterium in the universe declines steadily." (Ron Cowen, "Too Much Deuterium?: A Chemical MYSTERY in the Milky Way," Science News, September 2006).
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
cont.
In the vacuum of space, dust particles coated with ice would have tiny, relatively fixed spheres of influence, so they would not capture each other to form larger clusters (comets). Instead, rare collisions would scatter particles held together by their weak mutual gravity. No experimental evidence shows how, in the vacuum of space and in less than several billion years, billions of tons of particles can merge into even one comet - much less 1012 comets. How did interstellar dust form?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
FFS stupid youtube doesn't allow me to post a link. please google up "FORMATION OF
INTERSTELLAR DUST ANANTA CHARAN PRADHAN IIA ,BANGALORE-34". sorry about that, youtube comment system sucks
costa200 2 years ago
Researchers recalculate age of Solar System (PhysOrg, Jan 4, 2010)
"Any deviation from this assumed value causes miscalculation in the determined Pb-Pb age of a sample, meaning that the age of the Solar System could be MISCALCULATED by as much as SEVERAL MILLION YEARS...'This variation implies SUBSTANTIAL UNCERTAINTIES in the ages previously determined by Pb-Pb dating of CAIs,' explains Brennecka."
Guess it's hard to date an event that wasn't directly observed (Scientific Method, Step 2).
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
now that old "quote out of context" criationist BS is just laughable. Yes, miscalculation of isotopes can lead to an error of several million years. So what? For you is it that important that the solar system is 5,1 billion years instead of 5 billion years old? Does that help your case that much? Isotope dating always have an uncertainty percentage that goes to experimental limitations. So what? Do you have a better dating method? I would like to know if you do.
costa200 2 years ago
@costa200 2 of 2
"Evolution caught in the act: Scientists measure how quickly genomes change" (PhysOrg, January 1, 2010)
"Everything that is genetically possible is being tested in a very short period," adds Lynch, emphasizing a very different view than perhaps the one we are all most familiar with: that evolution reveals itself only after THOUSANDS, if not millions of years."
Thousands?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Yes, thousands. Possibly in some very special instances centuries, or in case of very fast reproduction cycles (like bacteria) decades. There are several expe