Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

How did the moon get there? pinheads!!

235 posts in this topic

Posted

So.... how did the moon get there?

We don't know for certain.

We have evidence of the impact theory.

We have evidence of the capture theory.

We have evidence of the formation theory.

As I said, "faith" (little f) is belief without evidence.

So... How is this "faith"?

Psst... This is where you take "We don't know for certain" and pretend you made a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

the galaxy is in orions belt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

We don't know for certain.

We have evidence of the impact theory.

We have evidence of the capture theory.

We have evidence of the formation theory.

As I said, "faith" (little f) is belief without evidence.

So... How is this "faith"?

How does science explain the moon's being hollow? Guess that negates a few of the presented theories above, which are all very juvenile in my opinion. Although unrelated to the previously mentioned...I do find the "Capture Theory" to be especially hilarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

How does science explain the moon's being hollow? Guess that negates a few of the presented theories above, which are all very juvenile in my opinion. Although unrelated to the previously mentioned...I do find the "Capture Theory" to be especially hilarious.

How do you know it's hollow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

How do you know it's hollow?

I suppose I dont know for a fact that its hollow, however the information presented regarding this theory I personally find to be very plausible. If youre interested in researching this I suggest looking into Richard Hoagland...brilliant man and fascinating stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I suppose I dont know for a fact that its hollow, however the information presented regarding this theory I personally find to be very plausible. If youre interested in researching this I suggest looking into Richard Hoagland...brilliant man and fascinating stuff.

I'm quite familiar with Hoagland's theories. I would suggest you look into Phil Plait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Bill's "ridicule" and asking questions is not proof that God exists. But the way he acts all pompous and uses names like we're stupid and he's got it all figured out. That was unintentional comedy. Sorry you can't laugh at it, for whateer reason (fan of O'Reilly or a fan of God)

A lot of religous fundamentalists think they have it all figured out. O'Reilly was raised a Catholic in the "old school" so I can't fault him for his beliefs. I tend to agree with him on many economical points and some social points as well. Just b/c he's on FOX News doesn't mean he's a party line conservative Republican. I like him b/c he agrees with a lot of economical conservative philosophies, yet is pretty liberal on a lot of social ideologies.

He may be stubborn when it comes to religion, but he's definitely no Pat Robertson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

All of the "scientific minds" in this thread seem to forget that the default scientific position is skepticism. Unless you've conducted your own research, you're putting faith (little f) in the work of someone who may or may not have had an agenda.

Great point....the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming comes to mind...tied to science, faith in scientists give this issue traction and attention, yet skeptics of this theory are now being treated with disdain. Dig deeper and suddenly the CAGW "theory" becomes much more in doubt and reveals a pattern that begins to point towards an evolving agenda by folks in the scientific community tied to research in this field, mostly that funding flows when doomsday outlooks emerge from research. On top of that the larger agenda becomes the Government seeing an issue that can be used to take more control/taxes under the guise of "the science is settled"....All this happens while the reality indicates there is little concrete evidence to support the CAGW stance, at least as far as claiming that controlling CO2 emissions will provide man with a thermostat for the earth.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Great point....the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming comes to mind...tied to science, faith in scientists give this issue traction and attention, yet skeptics of this theory are now being treated with disdain. Dig deeper and suddenly the CAGW "theory" becomes much more in doubt and reveals a pattern that begins to point towards an evolving agenda by folks in the scientific community tied to research in this field, mostly that funding flows when doomsday outlooks emerge from research. On top of that the larger agenda becomes the Government seeing an issue that can be used to take more control/taxes under the guise of "the science is settled"....All this happens while the reality indicates there is little concrete evidence to support the CAGW stance, at least as far as claiming that controlling CO2 emissions will provide man with a thermostat for the earth.

What is your evidence for the above statement/s? Keep in mind that scientific evidence=faith... but then science depends on faith... but if you're religious, all of the evidence you need is in the Bible, Koran, etc... but then that's not really evidence, that's just someone whom you cannot name and/or check their work... but you can't check any scientists' work... (well unless you have some way to type in their name & get multiple sources that show what they are about, but who has that?)... but that doesn't matter because science is the same as religion in that they believe things without evidence (well science doesn't, but why pick nits when you can pretend to be intelligent)... but if you just insist that science presents in absolutes the same way religion does (after being told over & over that it doesn't) you can pretend to be right if you point out a rare instance that was taken out of context.... yeah! Religion & science are the same! (as long as you ignore the evidence...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What is your evidence for the above statement/s? Keep in mind that scientific evidence=faith... but then science depends on faith... but if you're religious, all of the evidence you need is in the Bible, Koran, etc... but then that's not really evidence, that's just someone whom you cannot name and/or check their work... but you can't check any scientists' work... (well unless you have some way to type in their name & get multiple sources that show what they are about, but who has that?)... but that doesn't matter because science is the same as religion in that they believe things without evidence (well science doesn't, but why pick nits when you can pretend to be intelligent)... but if you just insist that science presents in absolutes the same way religion does (after being told over & over that it doesn't) you can pretend to be right if you point out a rare instance that was taken out of context.... yeah! Religion & science are the same! (as long as you ignore the evidence...)

Let's just say that science isn't always what it seems and can be manipulated....same goes for religion...I never attempted to infer equivalency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Let's just say that science isn't always what it seems and can be manipulated....same goes for religion...I never attempted to iner equivalency.

You're right. You didn't say nor did you imply what I responded to. My apologies.

I don't offer this as an excuse but an explanation, a crazy rich guy offered me a deal to cater his SB party. He paid for the food & the smokers/grills, etc... already. If the food is a hit, I get $10k & my wife's charity gets $20k. I've been preping since 3am (pacific) & I won't get to bed til after the SB. I'm in over sensitive jackass mode at the moment

Again, I apologise.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Additionally the moon and earth have other unique properties. For example, apart from Pluto/Charon which are not considered planet and moon anymore, but a binary dwarf planet system of Kuiper Belt objects, there is no other body that has as much mass ratio as our planet and the moon.

In the infinitesimally small part of the Universe we have explored...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites