Ghost Craters in the Sky
d ocean
http://www.trueorigin.org/dfonmoon.htm
my fav favs...
http://home.talkcity.com/ReflectionsRd/oceanvu/
...and knowledge shall be increased. Dan.12:4
dcee
"d ocean" wrote
> my fav favs...
> http://home.talkcity.com/ReflectionsRd/oceanvu/
> ...and knowledge shall be increased. Dan.12:4
>
Wow, my fav is the one that talks about the fact that looking at a finished
building prooves that the Christian God created the universe...
Wow...
And I thought that it would have been more complicated to proove it!
Thanks d ocean!
Boikat
>
> Is the Man in the Moon Telling us Something?...
No, since the pattern of mare also resembles a
beetle, or a rabbit, and several other "images".
>
> http://www.trueorigin.org/dfonmoon.htm
>
It only shows how desperate cretinists are.
Boikat
Bob Pease
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3AF2C3BC...@bellsouth.net...
More fun to take a rorschach test, especially since it's been proven to be
parlor fun and not scientific. (Scientific American..May 2001 Issue)
Rupert Goodwins
>Is the Man in the Moon Telling us Something?...
>
>http://www.trueorigin.org/dfonmoon.htm
>
"In the evolutionary scenario, the moon was formed about 4.5 billion
years ago."
Yes, the man in the moon's telling us that somebody can't tell
evolutionary theory from cosmology!
Other than that -- so there was lava flowing after cratering. Lots of
potential mechanisms and times for this. What mechanism is this chap
suggesting?
>my fav favs...
>http://home.talkcity.com/ReflectionsRd/oceanvu/
> ...and knowledge shall be increased. Dan.12:4
>
R
Mark VandeWettering
>Is the Man in the Moon Telling us Something?...
>
>http://www.trueorigin.org/dfonmoon.htm
What complete and utter drivel.
Honestly, is this the best that creationism has to offer? Is this
what passes for research and intellectual advancement in the world
of creation science?
We don't have to speculate on the age of the lunar highlands and
the lunar maria. Radioactive dating of lunar samples returned from
the moon by Apollo astronauts show that the age of rocks from
the lunar highlands is somewhere around 4 to 4.4 billion years old,
while the rocks that form the lunar maria range between 3.2-3.9 billion
years ago. If you are going to argue that they were formed nearly
simultaneously, you must argue against the accuracy of the science
of radioactive dating. Their relative ages are matters of fact.
The mistake which seems evident in five minutes of thought (there is
always one that is evident in five minutes, otherwise it just wouldn't
be creation science) is in the statement that:
The large impacts would have wiped out any and all craters
they hit. So the ghost craters could not be remnants of
craters from before those impacts.
The crater Copernicus is one of the more prominent lunar features.
I've observed dozens of times through telescopes, as it is kind of
an interesting crater. It's 93km accross, and represents some of
the newer geography on the moon, with an age of less than 1 by.
You can clearly see a system of lunar rays caused by the ejecta
from the collision. And yet, we see a number of craters clearly
older than the Copernicus very near the impact crater. Why were
these craters not wiped out by the impact?
Mark
>my fav favs...
>http://home.talkcity.com/ReflectionsRd/oceanvu/
> ...and knowledge shall be increased. Dan.12:4
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
Mark E. Miller
>Is the Man in the Moon Telling us Something?...
>
>http://www.trueorigin.org/dfonmoon.htm
>
"Ghost Craters in the Sky
Is the Man in the Moon Telling us Something?
A review of Dr. Danny Faulkner’s presentation on this subject
at the Origins 98 Conference at Bryan College.
by Helen Fryman
© 1998 Creation Research Society. All Rights Reserved. [Last Modified:
26 February, 2001]
This article first appeared in the January/February 1999 issue of
Creation Matters, a newsletter published by the Creation Research
Society.
<snip>
The highlands of the moon, the light pockmarked areas, are granite.
(Actually, anorthosite)
<snip>
Where Dr. Faulkner takes issue, however, is in the timing between the
large impacts and the magma overflow, and in the presence of the ghost
craters themselves[4]. First of all, he asks, how long would it take
between the giant impacts and the extrusion of the magma onto the
moon's surface? Hours? Days? Maybe, at the outside, a few years?
Certainly not half a billion years, though. The time frame here must
be collapsed to be real.
(Why? The timing of the maria extrusion is caused by the accumulation
of radiogenic heat within the moon, not the heavy cratering events as
a trigger.)
And then there are the ghost craters themselves. The large impacts
would have wiped out any and all craters they hit. So the ghost
craters could not be remnants of craters from before those impacts. If
the impacts that left the ghost craters occurred after the magma
overflow had solidified, then they would be as sharp and clear as the
other craters in the maria. But they are called ghost craters
precisely because they are NOT sharp and clear, but are simply
remnants. So they had to have been formed between the time of the
giant impacts and the time the magma rose to the surface of the moon
and overflowed, partially erasing those craters.
(Yes, and there was 0.5 BY available for this)
This gives us a more interesting scenario regarding the time frame of
the moon's history. The large impacts, which caused the maria, and
then the smaller impacts which were to become the ghost craters, and
then the magma overflow all had to happen within a fairly short
timespan. The time from start to finish here could have been anywhere
from a matter of hours to just a few years, but it is hard to imagine
it taking longer than that, simply because it is acknowledged by
astronomers of all philosophical persuasions that the giant impacts
were the direct cause of the magma overflow.
(This is wrong. "There is clearly a geographical relationship between
the large impact basins and the basaltic volcanism which generally
filled them. It should be noted however that some basins contain no
basalt, .. and the largest of the maria is not associated with any
basin. Moreover, it was long after their formation that the basins
were invaded by the basalt; it is estimated that 500 million years
elapsed between the Imbrium impact and its filling with lava. ...
Unlike what happened on Mercury, impacts on the Moon do not appear to
be dircetly responsible for volcanism; the basin depressions just
happened to trap the basalt." Cambridge Atlas of Astronomy, p117)
In short, the impact rate must have been huge. The long times demanded
by evolutionists are not only not needed here, but are contraindicated
by the evidence of the ghost craters and the magma itself. It may be
that the man in the moon is, indeed, trying to tell us something. "
(LOL! First, change part of the standard scenario due to incredulity,
then use the change you made as 'evidence' that the impact rate must
have been huge, and thus, everything completed in a short time!
Circularity on top of circularity!)
(Hint: Do a calculation using a reasonable value for heat flow, and
see how much time it would take for that volume of magma to solidify.)
Mark E. Miller
Mark E. Miller
VandeWettering) wrote:
>
>The mistake which seems evident in five minutes of thought (there is
>always one that is evident in five minutes, otherwise it just wouldn't
>be creation science) is in the statement that:
>
> The large impacts would have wiped out any and all craters
> they hit. So the ghost craters could not be remnants of
> craters from before those impacts.
>
>The crater Copernicus is one of the more prominent lunar features.
>I've observed dozens of times through telescopes, as it is kind of
>an interesting crater. It's 93km accross, and represents some of
>the newer geography on the moon, with an age of less than 1 by.
>You can clearly see a system of lunar rays caused by the ejecta
>from the collision. And yet, we see a number of craters clearly
>older than the Copernicus very near the impact crater. Why were
>these craters not wiped out by the impact?
Uhhh.. I *really hate* to take sides with a creationist, but here you
have misunderstood their argument. Copernicus would, indeed, have
erased any smaller crater which was previously in its position (i.e.,
which it 'covered'). In the same way, the impacts which formed what
became the 'ghost craters' when the maria basalt was extruded must
have occurred subsequent to the impact which caused the large basin
itself, since the 'ghost crater' is both smaller than, and entirely
within, the basin.
That's not a problem, since there was plenty of time for more
cratering between the heavy bombardment (basin formation) and the
maria extrusion.
See my other reply for the refutation to this (truly bogus)
creationist argument.
Mark E. Miller
Mark VandeWettering
I don't believe I've misunderstood their argument. What they seem to
be suggesting is that the resulting influx of molten material that forms
the maria was confined to the area of impact from the initial crater.
That would seem to be an unwarranted assumption.
>
>Mark E. Miller
Adam Marczyk
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3AF2C3BC...@bellsouth.net...
> d ocean wrote:
> >
> > Is the Man in the Moon Telling us Something?...
>
> No, since the pattern of mare also resembles a
> beetle, or a rabbit, and several other "images".
> >
> > http://www.trueorigin.org/dfonmoon.htm
I read this article, and it makes zero sense. The argument is apparently
that the moon must be young because there are ancient craters mostly buried
in the maria. That's pretty much all they have to say.
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
d ocean
did i miss somethin? what link stated specifically that looking at a
finished building proves that the Christian God created the universe?
Shalom
------
Group: talk.origins Date: Fri, May 4, 2001, 8:14am From:
dc...@sympatico.ca (dcee)
Clfranck01
>Date: 5/4/01 6:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Is the Man in the Moon Telling us Something?...
>
>http://www.trueorigin.org/dfonmoon.htm
I'm just happy all those last near-earth objects were
ordained to hit the moon and not us. Somebody up
there definitely likes us.
Craig Franck
clfra...@aol.com
Dover, NH
Adam Marczyk
news:28254-3AF...@storefull-122.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Hi dcee...
> did i miss somethin? what link stated specifically that looking at a
> finished building proves that the Christian God created the universe?
So you _don't_ think buildings prove the existence of the Christian God?
What are you - an atheist?
> Shalom
> ------
>
> Group: talk.origins Date: Fri, May 4, 2001, 8:14am From:
> dc...@sympatico.ca (dcee)
> "d ocean" wrote
> my fav favs...
> http://home.talkcity.com/ReflectionsRd/oceanvu/ ...and knowledge shall
> be increased. Dan.12:4
> Wow, my fav is the one that talks about the fact that looking at a
> finished building prooves that the Christian God created the universe...
> Wow...
> And I thought that it would have been more complicated to proove it!
> Thanks d ocean!
--
Bonz
>Hi dcee...
>did i miss somethin? what link stated specifically that looking at a
>finished building proves that the Christian God created the universe?
I suspect he's talking about the drivel at
http://home.talkcity.com/ReflectionsRd/oceanvu/pg4thereisnoGod.html
I know that some paintings are "made" because I have seen people
making them. I've seen paintings done by an elephant, and I have a
hard time telling some abstract art from the random spatterings on a
drop cloth.
Whoever wrote that page is an idiot. I'll tell you what. Let some
paint fall on a canvas. I'll throw some paint at another canvas, and
we'll let some chimps throw paint at a third. Then you come tell us
which is which.
Oh, you mean the painting I do by spattering paint isn't what he was
talking about? He was saying something REALLY profound, like, he can
recognize paintings that appear to be deliberately painted as
deliberately painted because he knows how people paint.
d ocean
Group: talk.origins Date: Fri, May 4, 2001, 10:56am From:
boi...@bellsouth.net (Boikat)
Is the Man in the Moon Telling us Something?...
Boikat:
No, since the pattern of mare also resembles a beetle, or a rabbit, and
several other "images".
ocean:
so you deny that the magma overflow was created after a major impact?
How many craters look like beetles or bugs bunny?
The evidence clearly shows the time from the major impacts to the time
of the magma flows was short, not a half billion years as evolutionists
would have us believe.
http://www.trueorigin.org/dfonmoon.htm
snip the Bk ad hominem
Shalom
d ocean
bobp...@concentric.net (Bob Pease)
<snip to apease bob>
More fun to take a rorschach test, especially since it's been proven to
be parlor fun and not scientific. (Scientific American..May 2001 Issue)
ocean:
more advertisements... and dont' think i'm all the sudden gonna buy SA's
May issue.
Rut Row Rorge
d ocean
Rup...@cix.co.removethis.uk (Rupert Goodwins)
Is the Man in the Moon Telling us Something?...
http://www.trueorigin.org/dfonmoon.htm
"In the evolutionary scenario, the moon was formed about 4.5 billion
years ago."
Rupert Reports:
Yes, the man in the moon's telling us that somebody can't tell
evolutionary theory from cosmology!
ocean:
..someone's telling us they can't tell time.
Rupert:
Other than that -- so there was lava flowing after cratering. Lots of
potential mechanisms and times for this.
ocean:
tell us some that take a half billion years.
Rupert:
What mechanism is this chap suggesting?
ocean:
duh... major impacts immediately creating magma flows that took a few
years at most, not a half billion years.
Shalom
Adam Marczyk
> boikat posts:
> Group: talk.origins Date: Fri, May 4, 2001, 10:56am From:
> boi...@bellsouth.net (Boikat)
> d ocean wrote:
> Is the Man in the Moon Telling us Something?...
>
> Boikat:
> No, since the pattern of mare also resembles a beetle, or a rabbit, and
> several other "images".
>
> ocean:
> so you deny that the magma overflow was created after a major impact?
> How many craters look like beetles or bugs bunny?
>
> The evidence clearly shows the time from the major impacts to the time
> of the magma flows was short,
What evidence would that be, pray tell?
> not a half billion years as evolutionists
> would have us believe.
[snip]
Boikat
>
> Group: talk.origins Date: Fri, May 4, 2001, 11:44am From:
> bobp...@concentric.net (Bob Pease)
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:3AF2C3BC...@bellsouth.net...
> <snip to apease bob>
> More fun to take a rorschach test, especially since it's been proven to
> be parlor fun and not scientific. (Scientific American..May 2001 Issue)
>
> ocean:
> more advertisements... and dont' think i'm all the sudden gonna buy SA's
> May issue.
> Rut Row Rorge
>
Don't think anyone's going to buy yours either
idiot.
Boikat
Boikat
>
> boikat posts:
> Group: talk.origins Date: Fri, May 4, 2001, 10:56am From:
> boi...@bellsouth.net (Boikat)
> d ocean wrote:
> Is the Man in the Moon Telling us Something?...
>
> Boikat:
> No, since the pattern of mare also resembles a beetle, or a rabbit, and
> several other "images".
>
> ocean:
> so you deny that the magma overflow was created after a major impact?
Nope, but that's not the point I was making.
> How many craters look like beetles or bugs bunny?
How many clouds look like dragons? Random
patterns can be interpreted any number of ways.
There's nothing special about the "Man in the
Moon". Get over it.
>
> The evidence clearly shows the time from the major impacts to the time
> of the magma flows was short, not a half billion years as evolutionists
> would have us believe.
>
Like you would know? All you're doing is
repeating cretin lies.
> http://www.trueorigin.org/dfonmoon.htm
>
> snip the Bk ad hominem
It's only an ad hominem if you know what an ad
hominem is. You do not. Try learning the meaning
of phrases before you attempt to use them in a
sentence fragment.
>
> Shalom
Still insulting the murdered Jews, I see.
Boikat
PS: Love the special attention in the thread
title. It please me to no end that I piss you off
sooooo much, that I deserve special attention.
d ocean
ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering)
Is the Man in the Moon Telling us Something?...
http://www.trueorigin.org/dfonmoon.htm
Mark remarks:
What complete and utter drivel.
ocean:
i'll bet it took a lot of brains to come up with that ad hominem huh
marky mark?
Mark:
Honestly, is this the best that creationism has to offer?
ocean:
hardly... but it is a mystery how you can add a half billion years when
what took place clearly only took a couple years at most.
Mark:
Is this what passes for research and intellectual advancement in the
world of creation science?
ocean:
LoL like your particles to people theory of evolution is intellectual.
Mark:
We don't have to speculate on the age of the lunar highlands and the
lunar maria.
ocean:
gimme a break Mark,,, Radioactive dating IS SPECULATION. IT's not a
perfected science....otherwise you wouldn't have to say 3>2 to 3.9
Billion years ago... that's a 700 MILLION YEAR PROBLEM WITH ACCURACY YOU
GOT already.
Mark:
Radioactive dating of lunar samples returned from the moon by Apollo
astronauts show that the age of rocks from the lunar highlands is
somewhere around 4 to 4.4 billion years old, while the rocks that form
the lunar maria range between 3.2-3.9 billion years ago. If you are
going to argue that they were formed nearly simultaneously, you must
argue against the accuracy of the science of radioactive dating.
ocean:
Since when is radioactive dating "accurate" without the evolutionistic
presuppositions put into the equation.
Mark:
Their relative ages are matters of fact.
ocean:
Matter of fact? ROFL even your own "facts" differ by over 700 million
years.
Mark:
The mistake which seems evident in five minutes of thought (there is
always one that is evident in five minutes, otherwise it just wouldn't
be creation science) is in the statement that:
The large impacts would
have wiped out any and all craters they hit. So the ghost
craters could not be remnants of craters from before those
impacts.
The crater Copernicus is one of the more prominent lunar features. I've
observed dozens of times through telescopes, as it is kind of an
interesting crater. It's 93km accross, and represents some of the newer
geography on the moon, with an age of less than 1 by. You can clearly
see a system of lunar rays caused by the ejecta from the collision. And
yet, we see a number of craters clearly older than the Copernicus very
near the impact crater. Why were these craters not wiped out by the
impact?
Mark
ocean:
because they were not ON the impact crater, they were near it.
And what does that have to do with the half a billion years it
supposedly took the magma to flow out from the impact craters under the
maria?
It's obvious Capernicus happened after the initial bombardment. But's
it's also obvious that there are few craters on the maria, so few
impacts have occured since the forming and cooling of the maria some
suggested three billion years ago.
You evolutionists need all that time for your molecules to man magic to
work.
time is the god of evolution.
Jesus Christ is God of time and everything else!
Shalom
my fav favs...
http://home.talkcity.com/ReflectionsRd/oceanvu/ ...and knowledge shall
be increased. Dan.12:4
--
now now for marks last mindless dribble remarks..
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float
m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ /
/*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X
=."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org>
*/puts("");}}
ocean:
that explains it
Boikat
>
> Group: talk.origins Date: Fri, May 4, 2001, 12:17pm From:
> ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering)
> On 4 May 2001 06:23:14 -0400, d ocean <OCE...@webtv.net> wrote:
> Is the Man in the Moon Telling us Something?...
> http://www.trueorigin.org/dfonmoon.htm
>
> Mark remarks:
> What complete and utter drivel.
>
> ocean:
> i'll bet it took a lot of brains to come up with that ad hominem huh
> marky mark?
You really should look up the meaning of words
before you attempt to use them. You would not
appear as stupid as you do. (BTW, moron, that is
not an ad hominem attack. It's an observation.)
>
> Mark:
> Honestly, is this the best that creationism has to offer?
>
> ocean:
> hardly... but it is a mystery how you can add a half billion years when
> what took place clearly only took a couple years at most.
Evidence?
>
> Mark:
> Is this what passes for research and intellectual advancement in the
> world of creation science?
>
> ocean:
> LoL like your particles to people theory of evolution is intellectual.
Despite your characterization, it's a hell of a
lot more believable than Magical Sky Pixies.
>
> Mark:
> We don't have to speculate on the age of the lunar highlands and the
> lunar maria.
>
> ocean:
> gimme a break Mark,,, Radioactive dating IS SPECULATION.
No. It's supported three ways to sunday, and only
ignorant twits cannot grasp it's veracity once
it's been explained to them. It has been
explained to you, hasn't it?
> IT's not a
> perfected science....otherwise you wouldn't have to say 3>2 to 3.9
> Billion years ago... that's a 700 MILLION YEAR PROBLEM WITH ACCURACY YOU
> GOT already.
Do you know what "statistical" means?
>
> Mark:
> Radioactive dating of lunar samples returned from the moon by Apollo
> astronauts show that the age of rocks from the lunar highlands is
> somewhere around 4 to 4.4 billion years old, while the rocks that form
> the lunar maria range between 3.2-3.9 billion years ago. If you are
> going to argue that they were formed nearly simultaneously, you must
> argue against the accuracy of the science of radioactive dating.
>
> ocean:
> Since when is radioactive dating "accurate" without the evolutionistic
> presuppositions put into the equation.
What presupposition is that? That decay rates
have remained constant? Yes. Do you have any
evidence to suggest otherwise? (You do know what
"evidence" means, don't you?)
>
> Mark:
> Their relative ages are matters of fact.
>
> ocean:
> Matter of fact? ROFL even your own "facts" differ by over 700 million
> years.
>
Do you even know what he meant by using the term
"relative"? Apparently not. "relative ge" does
not even address chronological age. You keep
showing your ignorance more and more. Are you
really a troll, a creationist, os someone that's
doing their best to make creationists look
abysmally stupid. If the later, it's working.
And the problem with that is?
>
> You evolutionists need all that time for your molecules to man magic to
> work.
>
And fortunately, the time was there, as
independent measurements using various means of
determining age attests.
> time is the god of evolution.
Time is not a deity.
>
> Jesus Christ is God of time and everything else!
Looking for Brown Nose points from the Big Guy?
I'm sure he was impressed by your dishonesty and
squinkage.
>
[insult to 5 million murdered Jews snipped]
Boikat
Adam Marczyk
[snip]
You have nothing to contribute.
*plonk*
Mark VandeWettering
>Group: talk.origins Date: Fri, May 4, 2001, 12:17pm From:
>ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering)
>On 4 May 2001 06:23:14 -0400, d ocean <OCE...@webtv.net> wrote:
>Is the Man in the Moon Telling us Something?...
>http://www.trueorigin.org/dfonmoon.htm
>
>Mark remarks:
>What complete and utter drivel.
>
>ocean:
>i'll bet it took a lot of brains to come up with that ad hominem huh
>marky mark?
Calling something drivel is not an ad hominem. Try again.
>Mark:
>Honestly, is this the best that creationism has to offer?
>
>ocean:
>hardly... but it is a mystery how you can add a half billion years when
>what took place clearly only took a couple years at most.
Because it isn't clear at all. In fact, it is ridiculous.
>Mark:
>Is this what passes for research and intellectual advancement in the
>world of creation science?
>
>ocean:
>LoL like your particles to people theory of evolution is intellectual.
I'm always mystified when creationists make this particular argument.
As if the "poof, god created man" argument is somehow different than
the "particle to people" theory.
Of course, the real problem for creationism is that we have evidence
that abiogenesis and evolution has occurred.
>Mark:
>We don't have to speculate on the age of the lunar highlands and the
>lunar maria.
>
>ocean:
>gimme a break Mark,,, Radioactive dating IS SPECULATION. IT's not a
>perfected science....otherwise you wouldn't have to say 3>2 to 3.9
>Billion years ago... that's a 700 MILLION YEAR PROBLEM WITH ACCURACY YOU
>GOT already.
You keep using the word science. I don't think you really know what it means.
The lunar maria were not formed all at the same time. Therefore, giving a
range of values is entirely accurate.
>Mark:
>Radioactive dating of lunar samples returned from the moon by Apollo
>astronauts show that the age of rocks from the lunar highlands is
>somewhere around 4 to 4.4 billion years old, while the rocks that form
>the lunar maria range between 3.2-3.9 billion years ago. If you are
>going to argue that they were formed nearly simultaneously, you must
>argue against the accuracy of the science of radioactive dating.
>
>
>ocean:
>Since when is radioactive dating "accurate" without the evolutionistic
>presuppositions put into the equation.
It is a matter of physics, not evolution.
>Mark:
>Their relative ages are matters of fact.
>
>
>ocean:
>Matter of fact? ROFL even your own "facts" differ by over 700 million
>years.
*sigh*
>Mark:
>The mistake which seems evident in five minutes of thought (there is
>always one that is evident in five minutes, otherwise it just wouldn't
>be creation science) is in the statement that:
> The large impacts would
>have wiped out any and all craters they hit. So the ghost
>craters could not be remnants of craters from before those
>impacts.
>The crater Copernicus is one of the more prominent lunar features. I've
>observed dozens of times through telescopes, as it is kind of an
>interesting crater. It's 93km accross, and represents some of the newer
>geography on the moon, with an age of less than 1 by. You can clearly
>see a system of lunar rays caused by the ejecta from the collision. And
>yet, we see a number of craters clearly older than the Copernicus very
>near the impact crater. Why were these craters not wiped out by the
>impact?
> Mark
>
>ocean:
>because they were not ON the impact crater, they were near it.
The maria just don't fill the impact crater, they fill the area around
the original impacts as well. Is that unobvious?
--
Adam Marczyk
news:9d1imt$l82$1...@node17.cwnet.roc.gblx.net...
> d ocean <OCE...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:28322-3A...@storefull-121.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>
> [snip]
>
> You have nothing to contribute.
Ahem. Sorry about that; I lose my temper with ignorance this dense
sometimes. I meant to say this...
d ocean <OCE...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:28322-3A...@storefull-121.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Group: talk.origins Date: Fri, May 4, 2001, 12:17pm From:
> ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering)
> On 4 May 2001 06:23:14 -0400, d ocean <OCE...@webtv.net> wrote:
> Is the Man in the Moon Telling us Something?...
> http://www.trueorigin.org/dfonmoon.htm
>
> Mark remarks:
> What complete and utter drivel.
>
> ocean:
> i'll bet it took a lot of brains to come up with that ad hominem huh
> marky mark?
You seem to be confused. Let me point out the difference for you. Mark's
dismissing the article as drivel was not an ad hominem attack, merely a
summation of its intellectual content. An ad hominem would be a personal
attack on the author, like this: "'d ocean' is a creationist troll who has
nothing useful to contribute and mindlessly posts propaganda from
creationist sites because he can't even think for himself and isn't educated
enough to comprehend the issues."
> Mark:
> Honestly, is this the best that creationism has to offer?
>
> ocean:
> hardly... but it is a mystery how you can add a half billion years when
> what took place clearly only took a couple years at most.
Pure speculation, you creationist moron. That site had nothing to offer
except, "Well, maybe all of mainstream science might be wrong!" No evidence,
not even a shred. No useful content whatsoever. Just unsupported guessing,
and totally absurd guessing at that. The _scientific_ model, as contrasted
with the creationist model, has no trouble whatsoever explaining the maria
of the Moon.
> Mark:
> Is this what passes for research and intellectual advancement in the
> world of creation science?
>
> ocean:
> LoL like your particles to people theory of evolution is intellectual.
Says who? You? What credentials do you have to make that statement? Are they
better than those of, oh, I don't know, practically every Ph.D. scientist in
the past 150 years? Or do you think you're qualified to evaluate the merits
of any argument because you have blind faith in a book of error-riddled,
self-contradictory Mesopotamian fairy tales written down two millennia ago
by wandering tribes of ignorant, illiterate Bronze Age goatherders?
> Mark:
> We don't have to speculate on the age of the lunar highlands and the
> lunar maria.
>
> ocean:
> gimme a break Mark,,, Radioactive dating IS SPECULATION. IT's not a
> perfected science....otherwise you wouldn't have to say 3>2 to 3.9
> Billion years ago... that's a 700 MILLION YEAR PROBLEM WITH ACCURACY YOU
> GOT already.
Whereas creationists have no accuracy whatsoever. In fact, they don't even
have evidence. All they have is guessing, ridicule and flat-out lies. Sounds
like we're ahead in the game. Now do tell us, where did you get those
numbers? Do you have a citation for them? (Do you even know what a citation
is?) Or did you just make them up, like all the other drivel you post here?
> Mark:
> Radioactive dating of lunar samples returned from the moon by Apollo
> astronauts show that the age of rocks from the lunar highlands is
> somewhere around 4 to 4.4 billion years old, while the rocks that form
> the lunar maria range between 3.2-3.9 billion years ago. If you are
> going to argue that they were formed nearly simultaneously, you must
> argue against the accuracy of the science of radioactive dating.
>
> ocean:
> Since when is radioactive dating "accurate" without the evolutionistic
> presuppositions put into the equation.
"Evolutionistic presuppositions?" Please. It's an entirely unrelated field
of science, and it's been verified beyond any ability to doubt. You can't
present any reasons why it should be wrong, not even one shred of evidence.
All you can do is close your eyes and whine "is not, is not!" How very
typically creationist of you.
> Mark:
> Their relative ages are matters of fact.
>
> ocean:
> Matter of fact? ROFL even your own "facts" differ by over 700 million
> years.
Our own facts? Then let's see a citation to a real peer-reviewed journal. Or
would that be too difficult for you?
> Mark:
> The mistake which seems evident in five minutes of thought (there is
> always one that is evident in five minutes, otherwise it just wouldn't
> be creation science) is in the statement that:
> The large impacts would
> have wiped out any and all craters they hit. So the ghost
> craters could not be remnants of craters from before those
> impacts.
> The crater Copernicus is one of the more prominent lunar features. I've
> observed dozens of times through telescopes, as it is kind of an
> interesting crater. It's 93km accross, and represents some of the newer
> geography on the moon, with an age of less than 1 by. You can clearly
> see a system of lunar rays caused by the ejecta from the collision. And
> yet, we see a number of craters clearly older than the Copernicus very
> near the impact crater. Why were these craters not wiped out by the
> impact?
> Mark
>
> ocean:
> because they were not ON the impact crater, they were near it.
> And what does that have to do with the half a billion years it
> supposedly took the magma to flow out from the impact craters under the
> maria?
Who says it took half a billion years? I'm inclined to doubt the word of a
person who believes blindly in a book that says the earth is flat and
covered by a solid firmament and bats are birds. Let's see some evidence, or
admit you're just lying.
> It's obvious Capernicus happened after the initial bombardment. But's
> it's also obvious that there are few craters on the maria, so few
> impacts have occured since the forming and cooling of the maria some
> suggested three billion years ago.
Sounds reasonable to me. What problem do you have with that?
> You evolutionists need all that time for your molecules to man magic to
> work.
If ignorance had mass, your skull would be a neutron star. I'm amazed so
much stupidity can be packed into so small a space. Evolution has been
observed. The evidence is irrefutable. Get over it and go whine somewhere
else.
> time is the god of evolution.
There is no god of evolution, you moron. On the other hand, there are lots
of faithful Christians who have no problem with that. How do you explain
that, or do you have the power to arbitrarily decide they're not really
Christians after all? Hypocrite.
> Jesus Christ is God of time and everything else!
Hey, I seem to recall another thread where, as usual, you made an ignorant
claim and then ran away whimpering when asked to defend it. You claimed
Christianity was a religion of love and couldn't be used to justify violence
and genocide. But you never explained this verse:
(Luke 19:27 - this is Jesus speaking)
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them,
bring hither, and slay them before me."
Now will you explain it, or are you just going to ignore this in the
pathetic hope that people will forget you ever made such an indefensible
claim? Do you have the intellectual honesty to admit you were wrong? Of
course, I should know better than to ask that. After all, you are a
creationist.
[snip]
Jon Fleming
>Group: talk.origins Date: Fri, May 4, 2001, 11:52am From:
>Rup...@cix.co.removethis.uk (Rupert Goodwins)
>On 4 May 2001 06:23:14 -0400, OCE...@webtv.net (d ocean) wrote:
>Is the Man in the Moon Telling us Something?...
>http://www.trueorigin.org/dfonmoon.htm
>"In the evolutionary scenario, the moon was formed about 4.5 billion
>years ago."
>
>
>Rupert Reports:
>Yes, the man in the moon's telling us that somebody can't tell
>evolutionary theory from cosmology!
>
>
>ocean:
>..someone's telling us they can't tell time.
>
>
>Rupert:
>Other than that -- so there was lava flowing after cratering. Lots of
>potential mechanisms and times for this.
>
>
>ocean:
>tell us some that take a half billion years.
>
>
>Rupert:
>What mechanism is this chap suggesting?
>
>
>ocean:
>duh... major impacts immediately creating magma flows that took a few
>years at most, not a half billion years.
And why is he saying that it took a few years at most?
Answering my own question:
" First of all, he asks, how long would it take between the giant
impacts and the extrusion of the magma onto the moon's surface?
Hours? Days? Maybe, at the outside, a few years? Certainly not half
a billion years, though. The time frame here must be collapsed to be
real."
In other words, he can't understand how it could have happened
otherwise. He has no evidence, just argument form incredulity. Also
known as a fallacy. Continuing:
"The large impacts would have wiped out any and all craters they hit.
So the ghost craters could not be remnants of craters from before
those impacts. ...[The ghost craters] had to have been formed between
the time of the giant impacts and the time the magma rose to the
surface of the moon and overflowed, partially erasing those craters.
This gives us a more interesting scenario regarding the time frame of
the moon's history. The large impacts, which caused the maria, and
then the smaller impacts which were to become the ghost craters, and
then the magma overflow all had to happen within a fairly short
timespan."
He states correctly that the large impacts would have wiped out any
craters they hit, then claims that implies that the large impacts
wiped out _all_ craters. Error. From that erroneous conclusion he
derives more erroneous conclusions.
>
>Shalom
>
>my fav favs...
>http://home.talkcity.com/ReflectionsRd/oceanvu/ ...and knowledge shall
>be increased. Dan.12:4
>
>my fav favs...
>http://home.talkcity.com/ReflectionsRd/oceanvu/
> ...and knowledge shall be increased. Dan.12:4
--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email
Jon Fleming
<snip>
>ocean:
>gimme a break Mark,,, Radioactive dating IS SPECULATION. IT's not a
>perfected science....otherwise you wouldn't have to say 3>2 to 3.9
>Billion years ago... that's a 700 MILLION YEAR PROBLEM WITH ACCURACY YOU
>GOT already.
First, that 700 million year range is not necessarily uncertainty; it
may reflect different rocks actually being different ages.
Second, even if it is uncertainly, it's plus or minus 10 percent. Not
all that bad.
>
>
>Mark:
>Radioactive dating of lunar samples returned from the moon by Apollo
>astronauts show that the age of rocks from the lunar highlands is
>somewhere around 4 to 4.4 billion years old, while the rocks that form
>the lunar maria range between 3.2-3.9 billion years ago. If you are
>going to argue that they were formed nearly simultaneously, you must
>argue against the accuracy of the science of radioactive dating.
>
>
>ocean:
>Since when is radioactive dating "accurate" without the evolutionistic
>presuppositions put into the equation.
Since it was developed. No presuppositions or anything from
evolutionary theory is involved. It's just physics.
<http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Wiens.html>,
<http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8851/radiometric.html>.
<snip>
Vincent Maycock
d ocean wrote in message
<28322-3A...@storefull-121.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>Group: talk.origins Date: Fri, May 4, 2001, 12:17pm From:
>ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering)
>On 4 May 2001 06:23:14 -0400, d ocean <OCE...@webtv.net> wrote:
>Is the Man in the Moon Telling us Something?...
>http://www.trueorigin.org/dfonmoon.htm
>
>Mark remarks:
>What complete and utter drivel.
>
>ocean:
>i'll bet it took a lot of brains to come up with that ad hominem huh
>marky mark?
snip
"Huh, Marky mark?" sounds rather immature, itself. d ocean's religion
requires him to believe in ideas which are contradicted by scientific facts,
and now he's here, whining for society to pretend that his ideas are *not*
so contradicted. I would advise this person, d ocean, to learn to deal with
reality. Grow up and stop making a jackass of yourself in public, which
means one of two things: learning to say, "My religion requires me to
believe in ideas which are contradicted by the scientific facts," (if you
say that, no one is going to have a problem); or, tossing out your religion,
at least in its present form. But going around making ridiculous statements
about the scientific evidence itself, in the hope that people will look the
other way, out of respect for how much your religion obviously means to you,
is annoying and unfair to everyone involved.
--
Vince
Rupert Goodwins
>Group: talk.origins Date: Fri, May 4, 2001, 11:52am From:
>Rup...@cix.co.removethis.uk (Rupert Goodwins)
>On 4 May 2001 06:23:14 -0400, OCE...@webtv.net (d ocean) wrote:
>Is the Man in the Moon Telling us Something?...
>http://www.trueorigin.org/dfonmoon.htm
>"In the evolutionary scenario, the moon was formed about 4.5 billion
>years ago."
>
>
>Rupert Reports:
>Yes, the man in the moon's telling us that somebody can't tell
>evolutionary theory from cosmology!
>
>
>ocean:
>..someone's telling us they can't tell time.
>
>
>Rupert:
>Other than that -- so there was lava flowing after cratering. Lots of
>potential mechanisms and times for this.
>
>
>ocean:
>tell us some that take a half billion years.
>
>
What needs to take half a billion years? One of the things about magma
is that it flows. You get a strike in one place that wipes out the
craters where it hits, this liberates some magma which spreads out
across the moon's surface and covers some adjacent craters. That could
happen at any time. Look at any volcanos on earth -- lava flows engulf
things miles away from the main eruption.
What problems do you have with this?
>Rupert:
>What mechanism is this chap suggesting?
>
>
>ocean:
>duh... major impacts immediately creating magma flows that took a few
>years at most, not a half billion years.
>
But he's saying that magma can't flow away from the impact site.
What's keeping it in place?
Andrew Glasgow
<ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
> d ocean <OCE...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:28322-3A...@storefull-121.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>
> [snip]
>
> You have nothing to contribute.
>
> *plonk*
You're just figuring that out now? I figured you guys were responding
to him out of some masochistic impulse.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
Dave Oldridge
121.iap.bryant.webtv.net>:
>ocean:
>gimme a break Mark,,, Radioactive dating IS SPECULATION. IT's not a
>perfected science....otherwise you wouldn't have to say 3>2 to 3.9
>Billion years ago... that's a 700 MILLION YEAR PROBLEM WITH ACCURACY YOU
>GOT already.
Mass spectrometers are not devices for speculating. They actually count
atomic nuclei. Granted some materials give better dates than others and some
cannot be dated at all.
>Mark:
>Radioactive dating of lunar samples returned from the moon by Apollo
>astronauts show that the age of rocks from the lunar highlands is
>somewhere around 4 to 4.4 billion years old, while the rocks that form
>the lunar maria range between 3.2-3.9 billion years ago. If you are
>going to argue that they were formed nearly simultaneously, you must
>argue against the accuracy of the science of radioactive dating.
>ocean:
>Since when is radioactive dating "accurate" without the evolutionistic
>presuppositions put into the equation.
And which presuppositions would those be and how would they weight the
equation(s)?
>Mark:
>Their relative ages are matters of fact.
>
>
>ocean:
>Matter of fact? ROFL even your own "facts" differ by over 700 million
>years.
Listen, dummy. ANY measurement will have error bars and when samples are
small and from various places, the differences may well be ACTUAL differences
in the ages of the rocks. You are hereby challenged to produce one piece of
CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC evidence for a systemic error in radiometric dates of a
factor on the order of 1,000,000.
Not really. There are some very long periods of near-stasis in there. But
YOU need a young earth in order to preclude it altogether and then you cannot
deal with the contradictions your voodoo flood theory presents, both
geological and biological.
>time is the god of evolution.
Deep time is an observation that any kid with a decent telescope can make for
himself.
>Jesus Christ is God of time and everything else!
Indeed. So why do you continue the practice of taking His name in vain and
of haring after the traditions of men who make their living doing that?
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
=============================================================================
=================
Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
--me, 2000AD