Man in the Moon
(M)-adman
per year
"2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away from the
Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides 1 million times
higher than those we see today."
Kinda hard to have evolution going on during all THAT chaos, eh?<G> Next...
"Scientists claim to have found the oldest evidence of photosynthesis - the
most important chemical reaction on Earth - in 3.7-billion-year-old rocks. "
Let's do the math. There is only 24000 miles left to go before the moon hits
the earth at the 2 billion year mark. Either the Earth was not here, or we
did not have a moon. I'll get to the third posibility in a moment.
See where this is headed yet? Ah, you Need more.
"Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules
should not preserve beyond 100,000 years."
"We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen MOR 1125)
fibrous cortical and medullary tissues remaining after demineralization. The
results indicate that collagen I, the main organic component of bone, has
been preserved in low concentrations in these tissues. The findings were
independently confirmed by mass spectrometry"
Maybe Dino's are not 65 million years old?
Maybe the Earth is not 65 million (much less 4.5 billion)years old either.
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3321819.stm
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v2i2f.htm#footnote1
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5822/277
Tim_Miller
> The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm or 1.6 in
> per year
>
> "2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away from the
> Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides 1 million times
> higher than those we see today."
Says who? You?
ROFLMAO@U!!
spintronic
Nice.
Friar Broccoli
> The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm or 1.6 in
> per year
>
> "2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away from the
> Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides 1 million times
> higher than those we see today."
The moon is about 384,000 km away.
That's 384,000,000,000 mm
The moon is receding at 38mm per year.
Simplified math gives 384,000,000,000 divided by 38 is 10 billion.
Or the moon would be touching the earth 10 billion years ago.
Therefore 2 billions years ago the moon would have been
roughly 300,000 km away (about 185,000 miles), which
is a LOT more than 24,000.
Boikat
>
> Nice.-
Only if you are a gullible twit.
Boikat
Boikat
> The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm or 1.6 in
> per year
>
> "2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away from the
> Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides 1 million times
> higher than those we see today."
Your source is wrong. The first link says nothing about the moon.
The second link is pure PRATT cretinoid bullshit that only
demonstrated the author, an you, ignorance and gullibility.
The third is about the possible descovery of soft tissue in the T-rex
leg bone, and is debatable.
>
> Kinda hard to have evolution going on during all THAT chaos, eh?<G> Next...
>
> "Scientists claim to have found the oldest evidence of photosynthesis - the
> most important chemical reaction on Earth - in 3.7-billion-year-old rocks. "
>
> Let's do the math. There is only 24000 miles left to go before the moon hits
> the earth at the 2 billion year mark. Either the Earth was not here, or we
> did not have a moon. I'll get to the third posibility in a moment.
>
> See where this is headed yet? Ah, you Need more.
Yes, it's headed the same place all your other BS goes: The crapper.
>
> "Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules
> should not preserve beyond 100,000 years."
> "We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen MOR 1125)
> fibrous cortical and medullary tissues remaining after demineralization. The
> results indicate that collagen I, the main organic component of bone, has
> been preserved in low concentrations in these tissues. The findings were
> independently confirmed by mass spectrometry"
>
> Maybe Dino's are not 65 million years old?
>
> Maybe the Earth is not 65 million (much less 4.5 billion)years old either.
Maybe you are stupid and gullible.
Boikat
Mike Dworetsky
news:EbpIk.47091$rD2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm or 1.6
> in per year
>
It's being "pushed", or accelerated, not "slipping away". But the speed is
about right.
> "2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away from the
> Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides 1 million times
> higher than those we see today."
>
Bad arithmetic. Can't you get anything right? No? Where in hell did you
get this trash?
Age of Earth (and presumed age of the Moon, maybe that is a bit less)
4,500,000,000 years.
Speed of recession 0.04 m/yr (it's actually a bit less). Multiply the two
and assuming the rate has been constant, gives a distance increase of
180,000 km. The Moon is currently about 400,000 km from Earth, so this
estimate says the Moon was 220,000 km from Earth when it formed. Now, in
fact the secular acceleration has varied over time because it depends on the
distribution of seas, oceans, and landforms, but the above BOTE calculation
shows that your "plausibility argument" is crap.
Tides are proportional to the inverse cube of distance. For a distance of
half the present value, tides would have been about 8 times greater.
At a distance of 24,000 mi (40,000 km) the tides would have been about 1,000
times stronger. It is unlikely that life could have got a toehold under
such conditions, but the Moon moved to greater distances very quickly (on
geological time scales) and conditions were much more favourable by age
500,000,000 years.
> Kinda hard to have evolution going on during all THAT chaos, eh?<G>
> Next...
>
Nope, no problem at all.
> "Scientists claim to have found the oldest evidence of photosynthesis -
> the most important chemical reaction on Earth - in 3.7-billion-year-old
> rocks. "
>
> Let's do the math. There is only 24000 miles left to go before the moon
> hits the earth at the 2 billion year mark. Either the Earth was not here,
> or we did not have a moon. I'll get to the third posibility in a moment.
>
Third possibility, the most probable, you can't do mathematics worth shit. I
would put money on it if the above is an example. However, you seem to have
quoted it from someplace so I'm unsure whether you got it from some
creationist website (which shows bad judgement on your part) or did the
calculation yourself (in which case I win the bet).
> See where this is headed yet? Ah, you Need more.
>
Into the wastepaper basket.
> "Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules
> should not preserve beyond 100,000 years."
> "We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen MOR 1125)
> fibrous cortical and medullary tissues remaining after demineralization.
> The results indicate that collagen I, the main organic component of bone,
> has been preserved in low concentrations in these tissues. The findings
> were independently confirmed by mass spectrometry"
>
> Maybe Dino's are not 65 million years old?
>
Or maybe previous ideas about preservation of some organic tissues were
incorrect. Dinos are at least 65 million years old.
> Maybe the Earth is not 65 million (much less 4.5 billion)years old either.
If the above is your argument, all you have bupkis. In fact, bupkis is much
more valuable, as you can at least use it for fertilizer.
> --
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
You need to lay off the coffee, adman. It's affecting your judgement.
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3321819.stm
> http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v2i2f.htm#footnote1
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5822/277
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Wombat
> The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm or 1.6 in
> per year
>
> "2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away from the
> Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides 1 million times
> higher than those we see today."
Try reading www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html and
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html
Your web site assumed the rate of recession to have been higher in the
past.
kinda makes the rest of your post moot, what.
Wombat
(macro in abeyance)
raven1
wrote:
>The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm or 1.6 in
>per year
>
>"2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away from the
>Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides 1 million times
>higher than those we see today."
>
>Kinda hard to have evolution going on during all THAT chaos, eh?<G> Next...
>
>"Scientists claim to have found the oldest evidence of photosynthesis - the
>most important chemical reaction on Earth - in 3.7-billion-year-old rocks. "
>
>Let's do the math.
Yes, let's. Your source obviously didn't, and neither did you. 4
cm/year x 2 billion years = 8 billion centimeters, or 80000
kilometers. The current average distance from the Earth to the Moon is
c.384403 kilometers, which, taking your rate of recession as correct,
would have made the distance 2 billion years ago around 304403
kilometers, or approximately 189070 miles, not 24000.
Once again, you show yourself to be completely clueless.
(M)-adman
You assume the rate of decent is constant.
There are other factors you are not considering. For one: The rate of
decent will increase the closer the moon gets to the earth. Gravity, tidal
forces, etc.
Observed in the outbound direction, the tides act like friction. This causes
the moon to slow down as it drifts further out indicating that it was going
faster when it was closer to the earth.
But assuming you are correct and the distance is 185,000 miles, the moon
would do great destruction long before the 4.5 billion year mark.
Cheezits
> The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm or
> 1.6 in per year
Yet another perfect example of junk science.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
spintronic
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hmm, so stupid.
Would you like to know why tonight, or after you apologise in a week?
Wombat
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html says you're wrong, and
why.
Read it if you dare.
Wombat
(macro in abeyance)
Friar Broccoli
Quite true.
To the best of my knowledge:
The most commonly accepted theory for the formation of the moon
is that soon after the earth formed, it was hit by another planet
sized object and crust material from the earth was scattered as
dust and rocks into earth orbit. The accretion of this material
eventually formed the moon.
The main evidence for this theory is that the mass of the moon
is so low that it appears to be formed entirely from material that
is like the crust of the earth.
r norman
Another agreement, here. The early moon was close to the earth and
the tidal forces would have wreaked great damage to the earth's
surface. However the origin of the moon was a catastrophic event and
that certainly wreaked much greater damage to the earth's surface! And
then there was the continued period of major bombardment that
continued to wreak great damage to the earth's surface. Then sometime
about 4 billion years ago, things tended to settle down a bit and an
atmosphere and oceans formed. OK, give or take a few hundred million
years!
Incidentally, it was Charles Darwin's son George who first studied
the tidal effects on the earth-moon system and proposed that the moon
must be receding away from the earth. A lot of George's ideas turned
out to be wrong, but that was the first mathematical analysis of the
gravitational-tidal system.
Wombat
> On Oct 12, 6:03 pm, Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 12 Oct, 18:03, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>
> > > The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm or 1.6 in
> > > per year
>
> > > "2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away from the
> > > Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides 1 million times
> > > higher than those we see today."
>
> > Your web site assumed the rate of recession to have been higher in the
> > past.
> > kinda makes the rest of your post moot, what.
>
> > Wombat
> > (macro in abeyance)
>
> > > Kinda hard to have evolution going on during all THAT chaos, eh?<G> Next...
>
> > > "Scientists claim to have found the oldest evidence of photosynthesis - the
> > > most important chemical reaction on Earth - in 3.7-billion-year-old rocks. "
>
> > > Let's do the math. There is only 24000 miles left to go before the moon hits
> > > the earth at the 2 billion year mark. Either the Earth was not here, or we
> > > did not have a moon. I'll get to the third posibility in a moment.
>
> > > See where this is headed yet? Ah, you Need more.
>
> > > "Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules
> > > should not preserve beyond 100,000 years."
> > > "We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen MOR 1125)
> > > fibrous cortical and medullary tissues remaining after demineralization. The
> > > results indicate that collagen I, the main organic component of bone, has
> > > been preserved in low concentrations in these tissues. The findings were
> > > independently confirmed by mass spectrometry"
>
> > > Maybe Dino's are not 65 million years old?
>
> > > Maybe the Earth is not 65 million (much less 4.5 billion)years old either.
> > > --
> > > A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> > > ·.¸Adman¸.·
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hmm, so stupid.
>
> Would you like to know why tonight, or after you apologise in a week?
I'll accept your apology whenever you're ready.
Wombat
Friar Broccoli
Glad to have your agreement.
You don't frighten me as much as Harshman, but still
whenever I see one of your replies I am saying: Oh god,
what did I screw up on this time?
r norman
You have to rely on two factors. First, there is my scary persona I
am perfecting for Halloween. Second, there is the unfortunate (for
me) fact that I am often wrong. That is, unless I have done my
homework and sling bushels of citations from the scientific literature
at you!
Then there is the additional factor (so I lied, there are three) that
with Larry Moran's absence we need a curmudgeonly grouch in the group.
Mark VandeWettering
On 2008-10-12, \(M)-adman <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm or 1.6 in
> per year
Ah, I sense an "extrapolation argument" coming on...
> "2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away from the
> Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides 1 million times
> higher than those we see today."
Bing bing bing! We have a loser!
> Kinda hard to have evolution going on during all THAT chaos, eh?<G> Next...
>
> "Scientists claim to have found the oldest evidence of photosynthesis - the
> most important chemical reaction on Earth - in 3.7-billion-year-old rocks. "
>
> Let's do the math. There is only 24000 miles left to go before the moon hits
> the earth at the 2 billion year mark. Either the Earth was not here, or we
> did not have a moon. I'll get to the third posibility in a moment.
The third possibility (which actually accounts for 100% of the available
probability space) is that you haven't got even the remotest clue about
anything you talk about. It's really too bad, because the scientific effort
to understand tides is a very long and interesting, well worthy of
study. There are a number of good websites which might point you in the
right direction, but one dealing directly with creationist claims appears
on talk.origins.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html
> See where this is headed yet?
Right over a cliff.
> Ah, you Need more.
>
> "Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules
> should not preserve beyond 100,000 years."
> "We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen MOR 1125)
> fibrous cortical and medullary tissues remaining after demineralization. The
> results indicate that collagen I, the main organic component of bone, has
> been preserved in low concentrations in these tissues. The findings were
> independently confirmed by mass spectrometry"
>
> Maybe Dino's are not 65 million years old?
Nope. They are.
> Maybe the Earth is not 65 million (much less 4.5 billion)years old either.
Nope. It is.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
On 2008-10-12, \(M)-adman <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>> On Oct 12, 12:03 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>> The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm or
>>> 1.6 in per year
>>>
>>> "2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away
>>> from the Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides
>>> 1 million times higher than those we see today."
>>
>> The moon is about 384,000 km away.
>> That's 384,000,000,000 mm
>> The moon is receding at 38mm per year.
>>
>> Simplified math gives 384,000,000,000 divided by 38 is 10 billion.
>> Or the moon would be touching the earth 10 billion years ago.
>>
>> Therefore 2 billions years ago the moon would have been
>> roughly 300,000 km away (about 185,000 miles), which
>> is a LOT more than 24,000.
>
> You assume the rate of decent is constant.
>
> There are other factors you are not considering. For one: The rate of
> decent will increase the closer the moon gets to the earth. Gravity, tidal
> forces, etc.
It's not descending. It's retreating. Didn't ou get this?
> Observed in the outbound direction, the tides act like friction. This causes
> the moon to slow down as it drifts further out indicating that it was going
> faster when it was closer to the earth.
You can't even get the signs of these quanitities correct.
> But assuming you are correct and the distance is 185,000 miles, the moon
> would do great destruction long before the 4.5 billion year mark.
Given that science's best idea on how it was formed was as ejecta during
a collison, the damage was done pretty thoroughly long before it reached
185,000 miles.
Mark
(M)-adman
thanks
(M)-adman
This is not an unreasonable theory. But it is a theory nonetheless.
(M)-adman
There are other factors to consider. You did not consider them
o-clueless-one
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <uVtIk.45545$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>):
Cool. Name 'em.
> You did not consider them
> o-clueless-one
>
>
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
(M)-adman
off the top of their heads what they think is truth.
rriiiight!!!
> Would you like to know why tonight, or after you apologise in a week?
--
r norman
wrote:
>spintronic wrote:
The authors used a computer to do wrong calculations and get a wrong
result. And yes, sometimes the arguments against you may be misguided
or even sometimes wrong. But you have been inundated with the facts
about all your points and you ignore all the valid points and
arguments and focus on trivia or your own oblivion to the real world.
1) Your moon business is totally fallacious. There are a large
number of web sites and authoritative scientific articles about the
origin and history of the moon and you are just plain wrong, wrong,
wrong based on everything we know about physics and astronomy and
geology. It doesn't matter whether the rate of receding of the moon
from the earth is constant or not; it doesn't matter how close the
moon was to the earth at the time of its formation. During this time
that life evolved on earth, nothing about the moon and its orbit and
the tides are incompatible with the scenarios proposed about the early
history of the earth and life on it.
You raise a second totally unrelated issue about organic matter being
found with T rex fossils. It certainly is true that nobody expected
that biological molecules could be found that old. That is why the
scientific paper you cite has a special section concerning the
"chemical stability of molecules over time" (as described in the
abstract). The statement you cite that "organic molecules should not
preserve beyond 100,000 years" may have been held at one time but that
statement is now found to have been wrong. People get corrected all
the time. That is what happens in science. That is what happens in
life. Ordinarily, when it happens, people say "Oops, I was wrong. I
learned something." Why don't you now say "Oops, I was wrong. I
learned something"?
Tim_Miller
You did not NAME them, oh lying one.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Friar Broccoli
<Eli...@gmail.com>:
Yeah, but it's the *thought* that counts.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>:
State them.
> You did not consider them
>o-clueless-one
[Wiggle, wiggle. "Hey, look at that cloud!"]
raven1
wrote:
>raven1 wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:03:18 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm or
>>> 1.6 in per year
>>>
>>> "2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away
>>> from the Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides
>>> 1 million times higher than those we see today."
>>>
>>> Kinda hard to have evolution going on during all THAT chaos, eh?<G>
>>> Next...
>>>
>>> "Scientists claim to have found the oldest evidence of
>>> photosynthesis - the most important chemical reaction on Earth - in
>>> 3.7-billion-year-old rocks. "
>>>
>>> Let's do the math.
>>
>> Yes, let's. Your source obviously didn't, and neither did you. 4
>> cm/year x 2 billion years = 8 billion centimeters, or 80000
>> kilometers. The current average distance from the Earth to the Moon is
>> c.384403 kilometers, which, taking your rate of recession as correct,
>> would have made the distance 2 billion years ago around 304403
>> kilometers, or approximately 189070 miles, not 24000.
>>
>> Once again, you show yourself to be completely clueless.
>
>
>There are other factors to consider.
List them. And admit that you didn't bother to check the accuracy of
the nonsense that you quoted above while you're at it.
raven1
wrote:
>spintronic wrote:
What part of the detailed calculations presented to you are incorrect?
(M)-adman
> "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> output:
>> The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm or
>> 1.6 in per year
> [etc.]
>
> Yet another perfect example of junk science.
>
> Sue
Of course it is Junk. Anything that disagrees with the TO web site is Junk.
NOT!
(M)-adman
Speculation..
Nashton
> On Oct 12, 11:24 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 12, 5:03 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm or 1.6 in
>>> per year
>>> "2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away from the
>>> Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides 1 million times
>>> higher than those we see today."
>>> "Scientists claim to have found the oldest evidence of photosynthesis - the
>>> most important chemical reaction on Earth - in 3.7-billion-year-old rocks. "
>>> Let's do the math. There is only 24000 miles left to go before the moon hits
>>> the earth at the 2 billion year mark. Either the Earth was not here, or we
>>> did not have a moon. I'll get to the third posibility in a moment.
>>> See where this is headed yet? Ah, you Need more.
>>> "Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules
>>> should not preserve beyond 100,000 years."
>>> "We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen MOR 1125)
>>> fibrous cortical and medullary tissues remaining after demineralization. The
>>> results indicate that collagen I, the main organic component of bone, has
>>> been preserved in low concentrations in these tissues. The findings were
>>> independently confirmed by mass spectrometry"
>>> Maybe Dino's are not 65 million years old?
>>> Maybe the Earth is not 65 million (much less 4.5 billion)years old either.
>>> --
>>> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3321819.stmhttp://www.scien...
>
> Only if you are a gullible twit.
>
> Boikat
>
Do you honestly think you've contributed anything to this discussion or
this ng *ever* , in general? All you seem capable of doing is insulting
others.
Grow the fsck UP.
Mike Painter
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> On Oct 12, 12:03 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>> The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm or
>>> 1.6 in per year
>>>
>>> "2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away
>>> from the Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides
>>> 1 million times higher than those we see today."
>>
>> The moon is about 384,000 km away.
>> That's 384,000,000,000 mm
>> The moon is receding at 38mm per year.
>>
>> Simplified math gives 384,000,000,000 divided by 38 is 10 billion.
>> Or the moon would be touching the earth 10 billion years ago.
>>
>> Therefore 2 billions years ago the moon would have been
>> roughly 300,000 km away (about 185,000 miles), which
>> is a LOT more than 24,000.
>
> You assume the rate of decent is constant.
>
> There are other factors you are not considering. For one: The rate of
> decent will increase the closer the moon gets to the earth. Gravity,
> tidal forces, etc.
You really should look into tidal forces before you start saying stupid
things again.
Oops, too late.
Free Lunch
alt.talk.creationism:
Jesus answered you:
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of
thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then
shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Boikat
Like you've made any contribution? You're as willfully stupid as
spinny and his pet troll.
> Grow the fsck UP.
Good advice. You should take it after you crawl back under your rock.
Boikat
r norman
wrote:
How interesting that you snipped out and completely failed to answer
all my substantive criticisms. You seem to do that a lot to my posts.
Others simply insult you and use foul language, something I try to
avoid, but there is a reason for such behavior: it is because you
demonstrate time and time again that you don't listen to well
presented and documented criticisms of your work. You simply continue
to spout the same nonsense again and again, generating thread after
thread while constantly ducking and ignoring real criticism. Why is
that? Is it because you have no answer? Is it because you cannot
admit error?
Michael Siemon
r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:37:37 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>
> wrote:
...
> How interesting that you snipped out and completely failed to answer
> all my substantive criticisms. You seem to do that a lot to my posts.
> Others simply insult you and use foul language, something I try to
> avoid, but there is a reason for such behavior: it is because you
> demonstrate time and time again that you don't listen to well
> presented and documented criticisms of your work. You simply continue
> to spout the same nonsense again and again, generating thread after
> thread while constantly ducking and ignoring real criticism. Why is
> that? Is it because you have no answer? Is it because you cannot
> admit error?
It's because he is so blindly ignorant that he doesn't even understand
how wrong he is! This is evident in all his attempts, but to me most
hilariously in the bits involving Steve Carlip with regard to string
theory -- he is so clueless he doesn't even see how moronic he looks.
Since he does not, in fact, understand anything of what he says, there
is of course no way he can answer criticism directed at it (even if he
were -- unlikely as that is -- willing to do so). So the obvious thing
(for him!) to do is just start another moronic thread.
Why don't you all just ignore or killfile him?
heekster
wrote:
>raven1 wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:03:18 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm or
>>> 1.6 in per year
>>>
>>> "2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away
>>> from the Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides
>>> 1 million times higher than those we see today."
>>>
>>> Kinda hard to have evolution going on during all THAT chaos, eh?<G>
>>> Next...
>>>
>>> "Scientists claim to have found the oldest evidence of
>>> photosynthesis - the most important chemical reaction on Earth - in
>>> 3.7-billion-year-old rocks. "
>>>
>>> Let's do the math.
>>
>> Yes, let's. Your source obviously didn't, and neither did you. 4
>> cm/year x 2 billion years = 8 billion centimeters, or 80000
>> kilometers. The current average distance from the Earth to the Moon is
>> c.384403 kilometers, which, taking your rate of recession as correct,
>> would have made the distance 2 billion years ago around 304403
>> kilometers, or approximately 189070 miles, not 24000.
>>
>> Once again, you show yourself to be completely clueless.
>
>
>There are other factors to consider.
No, no other factors, you lying asshole.
> You did not consider them
Because,there aren't any, asshole.
Seroiusly, you could not count your own balls twice and get the same
number.
>o-clueless-one
Not another ass-man sig.
Mark VandeWettering
The irony of this statement is not lost on the readers of this newsgroup.
Mark
Wombat
> spintronic wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 6:03 pm, Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
> >> On 12 Oct, 18:03, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>
> >>> The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm
> >>> or 1.6 in
> >>> per year
>
> >>> "2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away
> >>> from the
> >>> Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides 1
> >>> million times
> >>> higher than those we see today."
>
> >> Try
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Hmm, so stupid.
>
> The authors used a computer to do the caculations and these net-loons rattle
> off the top of their heads what they think is truth.
>
GIGO. The rate of recession is not steadily decreasing. A computer
is a tool.
Read www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.htm
Wombat
(macro in abeyance)
Kermit
> spintronic wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 6:03 pm, Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
> >> On 12 Oct, 18:03, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>
> >>> The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm
> >>> or 1.6 in
> >>> per year
>
> >>> "2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away
> >>> from the
> >>> Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides 1
> >>> million times
> >>> higher than those we see today."
>
> >> Try
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Hmm, so stupid.
>
> The authors used a computer to do the caculations and these net-loons rattle
> off the top of their heads what they think is truth.
It's simple arithmetic. That must be what confused you.
>
> rriiiight!!!
>
> > Would you like to know why tonight, or after you apologise in a week?
>
> --
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Kermit
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm or 1.6
> in per year
> "2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away from the
> Earth *snip rest of bullcrap*
4 cm * 2,000,000,000 = 80,000,000 m = 80,000 km.
Average orbital distance moon-earth: 384,400 km.
According to the numbers given by the morontheist itself we would therefore
look at an orbit of about 300,000 km 2 billion years ago.
24,000 miles = 38,400 km, roughly.
Oh well, wrong only by about a factor of eight. For a braindead morontheist
that's actually not too bad I guess.
Yup arsemoron, thanks for the laugh. You know, if you had ever seen a
classroom from the inside you might actually have learned some basic maths
and such a shameful blunder might then not have happened to you.
*applause for the hilarious moron*
(that is, of course, assuming the unlikely option that arsemoron actually
did the calculations itself instead from just copy/pasting from some
cretinist website)
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Rolf
"(M)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
news:GRtIk.45543$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Gravity is just a theory, and not a fact?
Wombat
wrote:
> Braindead morontheist "(M)-adman":
>
> > The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm or 1.6
> > in per year
> > "2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away from the
> > Earth *snip rest of bullcrap*
>
> 4 cm * 2,000,000,000 = 80,000,000 m = 80,000 km.
> Average orbital distance moon-earth: 384,400 km.
>
> According to the numbers given by the morontheist itself we would therefore
> look at an orbit of about 300,000 km 2 billion years ago.
>
> 24,000 miles = 38,400 km, roughly.
>
> Oh well, wrong only by about a factor of eight. For a braindead morontheist
> that's actually not too bad I guess.
>
> Yup arsemoron, thanks for the laugh. You know, if you had ever seen a
> classroom from the inside you might actually have learned some basic maths
> and such a shameful blunder might then not have happened to you.
>
> *applause for the hilarious moron*
>
> (that is, of course, assuming the unlikely option that arsemoron actually
> did the calculations itself instead from just copy/pasting from some
> cretinist website)
He copied it from the website he mentioned in the original post. They
made the erroneous assumption that the moon's recession speed was
greater in the past.
Wombat
Wombat
Still got that problem with the meaning of theory, I see.
Wombat
(macro in abeyance)
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <uja5f4larafm8dvrp...@4ax.com>):
>>>>>>> ·.žAdmanž.·
>>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3321819.stmhttp://
>>>>>>> www.scien...-
>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, so stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The authors used a computer to do the caculations and these
>>>> net-loons rattle off the top of their heads what they think is truth.
>>>>
>>>> rriiiight!!!
>>>>
>>>
>>> The authors used a computer to do wrong calculations and get a wrong
>>> result.
>>
>> Speculation..
>>
>
> How interesting that you snipped out and completely failed to answer
> all my substantive criticisms. You seem to do that a lot to my posts.
> Others simply insult you and use foul language, something I try to
> avoid, but there is a reason for such behavior: it is because you
> demonstrate time and time again that you don't listen to well
> presented and documented criticisms of your work. You simply continue
> to spout the same nonsense again and again, generating thread after
> thread while constantly ducking and ignoring real criticism. Why is
> that? Is it because you have no answer? Is it because you cannot
> admit error?
>
It would appear that he simply can't admit that he could ever be wrong about
anything. Logical people can and do admit error; I, for example, have
admitted to him that I was wrong about something I'd thought he did. Even
when caught red-handed he cannot admit error. All he does is snip out the
parts of replies showing his error and then make inane replies, typically
consisting of a paragraph or two. The shorter his reply, the more clear it
was to all (possibly including him) that he was wrong. You got the shortest
possible reply, so I'd say that the probability that he knows he's wrong is
quite high. The probability that he will ever admit it is quite low.
Nashton
Actually, no. I think that both of you need to begin reading for
comprehension.
He wasn't questioning gravity, but various theories concerning the
formation of the moon. He pointed out that it was an interesting theory,
but that it was merely a theory.
Nashton
Oh dear, a staunch atheist quoting passages from the Bible. How...quaint.
Nashton
We've got as live one here, folks. Typical example of how this ng has
become a cesspool.
Wombat
Precisely. You just made my point.
Wombat
(M)-adman
>>>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3321819.stmhttp://
>>>>>>>> www.scien...-
>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm, so stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> The authors used a computer to do the caculations and these
>>>>> net-loons rattle off the top of their heads what they think is
>>>>> truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> rriiiight!!!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The authors used a computer to do wrong calculations and get a
>>>> wrong result.
>>>
>>> Speculation..
>>>
>>
>> How interesting that you snipped out and completely failed to answer
>> all my substantive criticisms. You seem to do that a lot to my
>> posts. Others simply insult you and use foul language, something I
>> try to avoid, but there is a reason for such behavior: it is
>> because you demonstrate time and time again that you don't listen to
>> well presented and documented criticisms of your work. You simply
>> continue to spout the same nonsense again and again, generating
>> thread after thread while constantly ducking and ignoring real
>> criticism. Why is that? Is it because you have no answer? Is it
>> because you cannot admit error?
>>
>
> It would appear that he simply can't admit that he could ever be
> wrong about anything.
THAT would be you
(M)-adman
opinion
(M)-adman
And amusing
r norman
wrote:
That you snipped my response is a matter anybody can easily verify. It
is plain and simple fact.
I will leave you to the attack dogs. At least they seem get some fun
out of their activity.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <p2HIk.47532$rD2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>):
>>>>>>>> ·.žAdmanž.·
>>>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3321819.stmhttp:/
>>>>>>>> /www.scien...-
>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm, so stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> The authors used a computer to do the caculations and these
>>>>> net-loons rattle off the top of their heads what they think is
>>>>> truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> rriiiight!!!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The authors used a computer to do wrong calculations and get a wrong
>>>> result.
>>>
>>> Speculation..
>>>
>>
>> How interesting that you snipped
>
> opinion
>
And he's made another one-word reply. Looks like norman scored a direct hit.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <13HIk.47533$rD2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>):
>>>>>>>>> ·.žAdmanž.·
I have already admitted that I was wrong in at least one thing; you have
noted that I did so. You did this less than a week ago. Have you forgotten
already?
And I thought that you'd killfiled me. You did that the day after you noted
that I'd admitted error. Have you forgotten that?
Google is not your friend, laddie. Anyone who wants to can easily determine
who is telling the truth here... and who is not.
And, again, as I said earlier (and you snipped) the shorter your reply the
more obvious it is that you're in the wrong.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <7uf6f4hjsh1mne1vh...@4ax.com>):
>>>>>>>>> ·.žAdmanž.·
>>>>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3321819.stmhttp:
>>>>>>>>> //www.scien...-
>>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmm, so stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The authors used a computer to do the caculations and these
>>>>>> net-loons rattle off the top of their heads what they think is
>>>>>> truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> rriiiight!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The authors used a computer to do wrong calculations and get a wrong
>>>>> result.
>>>>
>>>> Speculation..
>>>>
>>>
>>> How interesting that you snipped
>>
>> opinion
>
> That you snipped my response is a matter anybody can easily verify. It
> is plain and simple fact.
Quite so. Anyone who has an offline newsreader (such as, oh, me) can view the
entire thread... and, in fact, every post made to t.o out to whatever
arbitrary cut-off point they or their newsfeed desire. I have my system drop
posts 35 days or more old, but I can get anything posted here up to at least
3.5 _years_ ago by removing that restriction and refreshing my local cache.
Beyond that I'd have to go to Google, but Google's easily available so that's
not a problem.
>
> I will leave you to the attack dogs. At least they seem get some fun
> out of their activity.
>
>
Frankly, I've about had it with him.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> He copied it from the website he mentioned in the original post. They
> made the erroneous assumption that the moon's recession speed was
> greater in the past.
Well I don't mind arsemoron copy/pasting the stuff (okay actually I do mind
but that's what I expect to see when I decide to read one of its postings
just for fun...), and that thing about a ludicrously high recession speed
is a standard thing to be found in morontheist claims anyway... but I still
want to almost literally piss my pants laughing when I read this totally
moronic thing presented as if one would need years of studies of advanced
mathematics to find that painful error. I mean, wrong by a factor of 1.5 or
even 2, that can happen... especially when one works with rough estimates,
like I admittedly did in my posting. But EIGHT?! Give me a break! :)
I mean, what the fuck, which grade does one commonly learn to do
multiplication in?! Sheesh!
I guess I still can't fully wrap my mind around the stunning level of
ignorance that is standard (and in fact a prerequisite) for morontheists.
Even though I've seen the crap for years now. :)
(M)-adman
is evidence that your opinion means nothing
(M)-adman
>>>>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3321819.stmhttp:/
>>>>>>>>> /www.scien...-
>>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmm, so stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The authors used a computer to do the caculations and these
>>>>>> net-loons rattle off the top of their heads what they think is
>>>>>> truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> rriiiight!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The authors used a computer to do wrong calculations and get a
>>>>> wrong result.
>>>>
>>>> Speculation..
>>>>
>>>
>>> How interesting that you snipped
>>
>> opinion
>>
>
> And he's made another one-word reply. Looks like norman scored a
> direct hit.
Oh lookie here. My favorite kook with more lies.
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.?Adman?.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
Boikat
> J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:04:11 -0400, r norman wrote
>
> >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:37:37 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> r norman wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:30:13 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed>
Then where is your rebuttal? Don't forget to show the math.
Boikat
r norman
wrote:
Apparently it means enough for you to behave differently towards me
than towards others.
Mark VandeWettering
Does the Bible's wisdom only work when quoted by an idi.. err... believer
such as yourself?
Mark
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <nFIIk.47579$rD2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>):
>>>>>>>>>> ·.žAdmanž.·
>>>>>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3321819.stmhttp
>>>>>>>>>> :/
>>>>>>>>>> /www.scien...-
>>>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmm, so stupid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The authors used a computer to do the caculations and these
>>>>>>> net-loons rattle off the top of their heads what they think is
>>>>>>> truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rriiiight!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The authors used a computer to do wrong calculations and get a
>>>>>> wrong result.
>>>>>
>>>>> Speculation..
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How interesting that you snipped
>>>
>>> opinion
>>>
>>
>> And he's made another one-word reply. Looks like norman scored a
>> direct hit.
>
> Oh lookie here. My favorite kook with more lies.
>
Where's the lie?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <o0o6f41fird826rhh...@4ax.com>):
>>>>>>>>>>> ·.žAdmanž.·
>>>>>>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3321819.stmhtt
>>>>>>>>>>> p://www.scien...-
>>>>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hmm, so stupid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The authors used a computer to do the caculations and these
>>>>>>>> net-loons rattle off the top of their heads what they think is
>>>>>>>> truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> rriiiight!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The authors used a computer to do wrong calculations and get a
>>>>>>> wrong result.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Speculation..
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How interesting that you snipped
>>>>
>>>> opinion
>>>
>>> That you snipped my response
>>
>> is evidence that your opinion means nothing
>
> Apparently it means enough for you to behave differently towards me
> than towards others.
>
He has no means of addressing your replies and he knows it.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<be74443b-4974-4f0a...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>):
>>>>>>>>>> ·.žAdmanž.·
He doesn't have one.
> Don't forget to show the math.
He can't count to twenty if he has his shoes on.
>
> Boikat
chris thompson
> The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm or 1.6 in
> per year
>
> "2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away from the
> Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides 1 million times
> higher than those we see today."
>
The Viti crater and associated fissures produced 2 km^3 of tephra in
in the course of an 8.5 hour eruption in 1875. This explains why
today, all of Iceland is covered in tephra to a depth of about 64
feet.
Chris
chris thompson
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:12:06 -0400, M\)-adman wrote
>
>
>
> > J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:22:14 -0400, M\)-adman wrote
>
> >>> r norman wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:37:37 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed>
> >>>>>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3321819.stmhttp
> >>>>>>>>>> :/
> >>>>>>>>>> /www.scien...-
> >>>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>>> Hmm, so stupid.
>
> >>>>>>> The authors used a computer to do the caculations and these
> >>>>>>> net-loons rattle off the top of their heads what they think is
> >>>>>>> truth.
>
> >>>>>>> rriiiight!!!
>
> >>>>>> The authors used a computer to do wrong calculations and get a
> >>>>>> wrong result.
>
> >>>>> Speculation..
>
> >>>> How interesting that you snipped
>
> >>> opinion
>
> >> And he's made another one-word reply. Looks like norman scored a
> >> direct hit.
>
> > Oh lookie here. My favorite kook with more lies.
>
> Where's the lie?
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
I do believe he was finally reading his own .sig
Chris
Bill Hudson
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 12:03 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >> The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm or
> >> 1.6 in per year
>
> >> "2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away
> >> from the Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides
> >> 1 million times higher than those we see today."
>
> > That's 384,000,000,000 mm
> > The moon is receding at 38mm per year.
>
> > Simplified math gives 384,000,000,000 divided by 38 is 10 billion.
> > Or the moon would be touching the earth 10 billion years ago.
>
> > Therefore 2 billions years ago the moon would have been
> > roughly 300,000 km away (about 185,000 miles), which
> > is a LOT more than 24,000.
>
> You assume the rate of decent is constant.
>
> There are other factors you are not considering. For one: The rate of
> decent will increase the closer the moon gets to the earth. Gravity, tidal
> forces, etc.
>
> Observed in the outbound direction, the tides act like friction. This causes
> the moon to slow down as it drifts further out indicating that it was going
> faster when it was closer to the earth.
>
> But assuming you are correct and the distance is 185,000 miles, the moon
> would do great destruction long before the 4.5 billion year mark.
>
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Dolt.
The moon was probably formed from debris ejected by a collision
between the proto-earth and another mars-sized object about 4.56
billion years ago.
South African rocks indicate that 3.2 billion years ago, the moon
orbited Earth in about 20 days, and was 25-percent closer to Earth
than it is today. But Earth was also spinning faster, so there would
have been about 550 16-hour days in a year.
The moon rocks are lighter and drier than rocks on the earth,
indicating that they were formed from the upper crust of the two
bodies, and were subjected to extreme heat.
There is no 'rate of decent (sic)'. The moon is receding from the
earth.
Mike Dworetsky
news:gcvrh...@news1.newsguy.com...
>>>>>>>>>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
>
> Boikat
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or off?
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
johnetho...@yahoo.com
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:12:06 -0400, M\)-adman wrote
>
>
>
> > J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:22:14 -0400, M\)-adman wrote
>
> >>> r norman wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:37:37 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed>
> >>>>>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3321819.stmhttp
> >>>>>>>>>> :/
> >>>>>>>>>> /www.scien...-
> >>>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>>> Hmm, so stupid.
>
> >>>>>>> The authors used a computer to do the caculations and these
> >>>>>>> net-loons rattle off the top of their heads what they think is
> >>>>>>> truth.
>
> >>>>>>> rriiiight!!!
>
> >>>>>> The authors used a computer to do wrong calculations and get a
> >>>>>> wrong result.
>
> >>>>> Speculation..
>
> >>>> How interesting that you snipped
>
> >>> opinion
>
> >> And he's made another one-word reply. Looks like norman scored a
> >> direct hit.
>
> > Oh lookie here. My favorite kook with more lies.
>
> Where's the lie?
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
I believe he was looking in the mirror when he made his last reply. If
so he actually got it right for once.
(M)-adman
confirmed lier
it really is that simple
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.?Adman?.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
(M)-adman
>>>>>>>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3321819.stmhtt
>>>>>>>>>>>> p://www.scien...-
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hmm, so stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The authors used a computer to do the caculations and these
>>>>>>>>> net-loons rattle off the top of their heads what they think is
>>>>>>>>> truth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> rriiiight!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The authors used a computer to do wrong calculations and get a
>>>>>>>> wrong result.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Speculation..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How interesting that you snipped
>>>>>
>>>>> opinion
>>>>
>>>> That you snipped my response
>>>
>>> is evidence that your opinion means nothing
>>
>> Apparently it means enough for you to behave differently towards me
>> than towards others.
>>
>
> He has no means of addressing your replies and he knows it.
you are a confirmed lier
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.?Adman?.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
Tim_Miller
exhibiting "projection"...
(M)-adman
> Braindead morontheist "(M)-adman":
>
>> The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm or
>> 1.6 in per year
>> "2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away
>
> 4 cm * 2,000,000,000 = 80,000,000 m = 80,000 km.
> Average orbital distance moon-earth: 384,400 km.
>
> According to the numbers given by the morontheist itself we would
> therefore look at an orbit of about 300,000 km 2 billion years ago.
>
> 24,000 miles = 38,400 km, roughly.
>
> Oh well, wrong only by about a factor of eight. For a braindead
> morontheist that's actually not too bad I guess.
You agree it is imposible for the earth to be as old as it is claimed
Tim_Miller
As old as it is claimed by creationists? You bet. The EVIDENCE
is all against it. The Earth is accepted by scientists to be
around 4.5 billion years old.
(M)-adman
You are the next one I will catch in a blatant lie conceived only to
discredit the person disagreeing with you.
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
List of confirmed liers
1) J.J. O'Shea
you can be added to the list too!
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <pHMIk.48063$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>):
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ·.žAdmanž.·
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3321819.stmh
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ttp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /www.scien...-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hmm, so stupid.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The authors used a computer to do the caculations and these
>>>>>>>>>> net-loons rattle off the top of their heads what they think is
>>>>>>>>>> truth.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> rriiiight!!!
>>>
>>>>>>>>> The authors used a computer to do wrong calculations and get a
>>>>>>>>> wrong result.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Speculation..
>>>
>>>>>>> How interesting that you snipped
>>>
>>>>>> opinion
>>>
>>>>> And he's made another one-word reply. Looks like norman scored a
>>>>> direct hit.
>>>
>>>> Oh lookie here. My favorite kook with more lies.
>>>
>>> Where's the lie?
>>>
>>> --
>>> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
>>
>> I do believe he was finally reading his own .sig
>>
>> Chris
>
> You are the next one I will catch in a blatant lie conceived only to
> discredit the person disagreeing with you.
>
>
You haven't caught even one yet, so you can't catch 'another'.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <vAMIk.48059$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>):
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ·.žAdmanž.·
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3321819.stmh
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> p://www.scien...-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hmm, so stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The authors used a computer to do the caculations and these
>>>>>>>>>> net-loons rattle off the top of their heads what they think is
>>>>>>>>>> truth.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> rriiiight!!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The authors used a computer to do wrong calculations and get a
>>>>>>>>> wrong result.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Speculation..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How interesting that you snipped
>>>>>>
>>>>>> opinion
>>>>>
>>>>> That you snipped my response
>>>>
>>>> is evidence that your opinion means nothing
>>>
>>> Apparently it means enough for you to behave differently towards me
>>> than towards others.
>>>
>>
>> He has no means of addressing your replies and he knows it.
>
> you are a confirmed lier
>
>
>
When and by whom?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <GzMIk.48058$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>):
>>>>>>>>>>> ·.žAdmanž.·
>>>>>>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3321819.stmhtt
When, and by whom?
>
> it really is that simple
Sorry, but your word alone is not enough. This is particularly so when all
anyone has to do is to look in Google and see for themselves. Articles of
interest would include <itPHk.40172$IB6....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
timestamped Fri, 10 Oct 2008 and
<z1vHk.44280$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, timestamped Thu, 9 Oct 2008
17:55:47 -0400. They're there for all to see.
r norman
wrote:
>J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>> Google is not your friend, laddie. Anyone who wants to can easily
>> determine who is telling the truth here... and who is not.
>>
>> And, again, as I said earlier (and you snipped) the shorter your
>> reply the more obvious it is that you're in the wrong.
>
>confirmed lier
>
>it really is that simple
Yes it certainly is. JJ OShea is most certainly someone who places
him/herself in a horizontal position, as when going to sleep at night.
As to whether or not telling falsehoods is involved, that would
require an entirely different word.
Kleuskes & Moos
> Nashton wrote:
> > Free Lunch wrote:
> >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:42:27 -0300, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote in
> >> alt.talk.creationism:
>
> >>> Boikat wrote:
> >>>> On Oct 12, 11:24 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4
> >>>>>> cm or 1.6 in per year
> >>>>>> "2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away
> >>>>>> from the Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing
> >>>>>> tides 1 million times higher than those we see today."
> >>>>>> eh?<G> Next... "Scientists claim to have found the oldest
> >>>>>> evidence of photosynthesis - the most important chemical
> >>>>>> reaction on Earth - in 3.7-billion-year-old rocks. " Let's do
> >>>>>> the math. There is only 24000 miles left to go before the moon
> >>>>>> hits the earth at the 2 billion year mark. Either the Earth was
> >>>>>> not here, or we did not have a moon. I'll get to the third
> >>>>>> posibility in a moment. See where this is headed yet? Ah, you Need
> >>>>>> more.
> >>>>>> "Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic
> >>>>>> molecules should not preserve beyond 100,000 years."
> >>>>>> "We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen
> >>>>>> MOR 1125) fibrous cortical and medullary tissues remaining after
> >>>>>> demineralization. The results indicate that collagen I, the main
> >>>>>> organic component of bone, has been preserved in low
> >>>>>> concentrations in these tissues. The findings were independently
> >>>>>> confirmed by mass spectrometry" Maybe Dino's are not 65 million years
> >>>>>> old?
> >>>>>> Maybe the Earth is not 65 million (much less 4.5 billion)years
> >>>>>> old either. --
> >>>>>> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
> >>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3321819.stmhttp://www.scien...
> >>>>> Nice.-
> >>>> Only if you are a gullible twit.
>
> >>>> Boikat
>
> >>> Do you honestly think you've contributed anything to this
> >>> discussion or this ng *ever* , in general? All you seem capable of
> >>> doing is insulting others.
>
> >>> Grow the fsck UP.
>
> >> Jesus answered you:
>
> >> 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
> >> considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
>
> >> 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out
> >> of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
>
> >> 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and
> >> then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy
> >> brother's eye.
>
> > Oh dear, a staunch atheist quoting passages from the Bible.
> > How...quaint.
>
And justified. After all, i don't have to believe that Don Quichote
and Sancho Panza really existed to quote Cervantes or think that the
Man from La Mancha does have a point every now and then.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <no87f4t4qgq6f0g01...@4ax.com>):
Frankly, I call Loki on the Madman. No _real_ creationist cretin can be
_that_ much of an idiot... can they?
Mike Dworetsky
No parody of a creationist can outdo what they themselves do.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <na...@na.ca>:
>Wombat wrote:
>> On Oct 12, 11:24 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
<snip>
>>>> The most commonly accepted theory for the formation of the moon
>>>> is that soon after the earth formed, it was hit by another planet
>>>> sized object and crust material from the earth was scattered as
>>>> dust and rocks into earth orbit. The accretion of this material
>>>> eventually formed the moon.
>>>> The main evidence for this theory is that the mass of the moon
>>>> is so low that it appears to be formed entirely from material that
>>>> is like the crust of the earth.
>>> This is not an unreasonable theory. But it is a theory nonetheless.
>> Still got that problem with the meaning of theory, I see.
>Actually, no. I think that both of you need to begin reading for
>comprehension.
>He wasn't questioning gravity, but various theories concerning the
>formation of the moon. He pointed out that it was an interesting theory,
>but that it was merely a theory.
So you share his problem regarding knowledge of the meaning
of "theory" as used by science?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>:
>Nashton wrote:
>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:42:27 -0300, Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote in
>>> alt.talk.creationism:
>>>
....and impossible to refute.
Dave Kahn
> Then where is your rebuttal? Don't forget to show the math.
He doesn't need math. The people he's relying on used a computer. And as
we all know computers never go #+[}}[[-99-0*&^%567...
--
Dave...
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Translation: I can't point to any lies of his because there aren't
any. The lies are all mine, and I'm going to keep it up.
Dave Kahn
> r norman wrote:
>>That you snipped my response
> is evidence that your opinion means nothing
No, it's not evidence of anything. If you post some calculations and
they are challenged you should be prepared to discuss those challenges.
The fact that you hide behind short irrelevant answers suggests that you
do not understand the basis of the calculations you posted. The fact
that you think the findings of someone who "used a computer" cannot be
challenged by simple maths suggests you do not understand simple maths.
Yet your original post relies on simple maths.
If you showed some sign that you were actually trying to grapple with
the ideas being presented here and do some independent thinking people
would respect you for it regardless of whether they agree with you. If
you ask for help understanding the figures there are plenty of people
here who would provide it. Anyone can be wrong, and admitting a mistake
here and there will not destroy your whole belief system.
--
Dave...
Mark Isaak
> In article <uja5f4larafm8dvrp...@4ax.com>,
> r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:37:37 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>
>> wrote:
> ...
>
>> How interesting that you snipped out and completely failed to answer
>> all my substantive criticisms. You seem to do that a lot to my posts.
>> Others simply insult you and use foul language, something I try to
>> avoid, but there is a reason for such behavior: it is because you
>> demonstrate time and time again that you don't listen to well
>> presented and documented criticisms of your work. You simply continue
>> to spout the same nonsense again and again, generating thread after
>> thread while constantly ducking and ignoring real criticism. Why is
>> that? Is it because you have no answer? Is it because you cannot
>> admit error?
>
> It's because he is so blindly ignorant that he doesn't even understand
> how wrong he is!
It's worse than that. If he thought he was right, he would try to defend
himself, but instead of even trying, he just insults people. He is
repeating lies that he surely at least suspects are lies, but he repeats
them anyway.
Maybe someday he will learn something about religion, but I doubt it. He
is clinging too hard to his fantasy about religion, hoping beyond hope
that he can still be saved if enough people clap their hands.
> Why don't you all just ignore or killfile him?
I'm tempted, but is his such a good case study in pathology.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:42:27 -0300, Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote in
>> alt.talk.creationism:
>>
>>> Boikat wrote:
>>>> On Oct 12, 11:24 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 12, 5:03 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm or 1.6 in
>>>>>> per year
>>>>>> "2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away from the
>>>>>> Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides 1 million times
>>>>>> higher than those we see today."
>>>>>> Kinda hard to have evolution going on during all THAT chaos, eh?<G> Next...
>>>>>> "Scientists claim to have found the oldest evidence of photosynthesis - the
>>>>>> most important chemical reaction on Earth - in 3.7-billion-year-old rocks. "
>>>>>> Let's do the math. There is only 24000 miles left to go before the moon hits
>>>>>> the earth at the 2 billion year mark. Either the Earth was not here, or we
>>>>>> did not have a moon. I'll get to the third posibility in a moment.
>>>>>> See where this is headed yet? Ah, you Need more.
>>>>>> "Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules
>>>>>> should not preserve beyond 100,000 years."
>>>>>> "We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen MOR 1125)
>>>>>> fibrous cortical and medullary tissues remaining after demineralization. The
>>>>>> results indicate that collagen I, the main organic component of bone, has
>>>>>> been preserved in low concentrations in these tissues. The findings were
>>>>>> independently confirmed by mass spectrometry"
>>>>>> Maybe Dino's are not 65 million years old?
>>>>>> Maybe the Earth is not 65 million (much less 4.5 billion)years old either.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>>>>>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3321819.stmhttp://www.scien...
>>>>> Nice.-
>>>> Only if you are a gullible twit.
>>>>
>>>> Boikat
>>>>
>>> Do you honestly think you've contributed anything to this discussion or
>>> this ng *ever* , in general? All you seem capable of doing is insulting
>>> others.
>>>
>>> Grow the fsck UP.
>>
>> Jesus answered you:
>>
>> 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
>> considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
>>
>> 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of
>> thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
>>
>> 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then
>> shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
>>
>
>Oh dear, a staunch atheist quoting passages from the Bible. How...quaint.
I guess you don't really believe it.
heekster
>heekster wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:28:09 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> raven1 wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:03:18 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm or
>>>>> 1.6 in per year
>>>>>
>>>>> "2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away
>>>>> from the Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides
>>>>> 1 million times higher than those we see today."
>>>>>
>>>>> Kinda hard to have evolution going on during all THAT chaos, eh?<G>
>>>>> Next...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Scientists claim to have found the oldest evidence of
>>>>> photosynthesis - the most important chemical reaction on Earth - in
>>>>> 3.7-billion-year-old rocks. "
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's do the math.
>>>> Yes, let's. Your source obviously didn't, and neither did you. 4
>>>> cm/year x 2 billion years = 8 billion centimeters, or 80000
>>>> kilometers. The current average distance from the Earth to the Moon is
>>>> c.384403 kilometers, which, taking your rate of recession as correct,
>>>> would have made the distance 2 billion years ago around 304403
>>>> kilometers, or approximately 189070 miles, not 24000.
>>>>
>>>> Once again, you show yourself to be completely clueless.
>>>
>>> There are other factors to consider.
>>
>> No, no other factors, you lying asshole.
>>
>>> You did not consider them
>>
>> Because,there aren't any, asshole.
>>
>> Seroiusly, you could not count your own balls twice and get the same
>> number.
>>
>>> o-clueless-one
>>
>> Not another ass-man sig.
>
>
>We've got as live one here, folks. Typical example of how this ng has
>become a cesspool.
Are you the moderator of this newsgroup, hoser?
raven1
You're not helping your cause by objecting to heekster's language
rather than (M)-adman's abject stupidity. Face it, (M)-adman
cut-and-pasted from a Creationist website without bothering to check
if what it said was true, and got his butt kicked over it, with the
basic arithmetic shown for all to see exactly why what he posted was
completely wrong.
If you're less offended by stupidity from people on your side than by
words referring to body parts, then I don't know what to suggest to
you, other than to give up reading.
heekster
Is that all you have?
You're just a petulant pedant.
heekster
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:42:27 -0300, Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote in
>> alt.talk.creationism:
>>
>>> Boikat wrote:
>>>> On Oct 12, 11:24 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 12, 5:03 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm or 1.6 in
>>>>>> per year
>>>>>> "2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away from the
>>>>>> Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides 1 million times
>>>>>> higher than those we see today."
>>>>>> Kinda hard to have evolution going on during all THAT chaos, eh?<G> Next...
>>>>>> "Scientists claim to have found the oldest evidence of photosynthesis - the
>>>>>> most important chemical reaction on Earth - in 3.7-billion-year-old rocks. "
Oh my, a stultified whinging ignoramus, commenting in a most parochial
fashion. How... hilarious.
(M)-adman
And incorrectly elevated to the status of truth
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
My List of confirmed liers
1) J.J. O'Shea
Don't fret!! YOU can be added to the list too!
(M)-adman
And incorrect
(M)-adman
> On Oct 12, 10:05 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>> On Oct 12, 12:03 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>>> The Moon is slipping away from the Earth at a rate of appox. 4 cm
>>>> or
>>>> 1.6 in per year
>>
>>>> "2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away
>>>> from the Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides
>>>> 1 million times higher than those we see today."
>>
>>> That's 384,000,000,000 mm
>>> The moon is receding at 38mm per year.
>>
>>> Simplified math gives 384,000,000,000 divided by 38 is 10 billion.
>>> Or the moon would be touching the earth 10 billion years ago.
>>
>>> Therefore 2 billions years ago the moon would have been
>>> roughly 300,000 km away (about 185,000 miles), which
>>> is a LOT more than 24,000.
>>
>> You assume the rate of decent is constant.
>>
>> There are other factors you are not considering. For one: The rate of
>> decent will increase the closer the moon gets to the earth. Gravity,
>> tidal forces, etc.
>>
>> Observed in the outbound direction, the tides act like friction.
>> This causes the moon to slow down as it drifts further out
>> indicating that it was going faster when it was closer to the earth.
>>
>> But assuming you are correct and the distance is 185,000 miles, the
>> moon would do great destruction long before the 4.5 billion year
>> mark.
>>
>> --
>> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>>
>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> The moon was probably
Probably?
Get back with me when you can present facts, as i have