ha ha ha... Ya right. Re: Earth smash spawned Moon
John P. Boatwright
> KRH: The early solar system was a very messy place. There were lots of
> collisions between asteroids, moons, and planets. That's why there's so
> many craters on the Moon, Mars, Mercury and elsewhere.
That's what the explosion did, lot's of planetary matter
blasted out. Some of it won't achive orbit around the
sun and will come crashing back.
The problem I see from the moon being expected to be
from say a solar system induced impact is that in the
initial explosion, said matter coming crashing back
if it isn't orbiting, won't have the time needed to
regather and cause any real impact type mass.
Other than that, you only have matter >>> NORMAL <<<
to the direction of the big bang to impact with
earth. I don't see that happening either, the chance
of an accurate "hit" from some distant star exploding is
about nil. AND it would have to happen quite a few
times to get all the moons found in our solar system.
Both methods of impact are too improbable.
The moon is merely matter that was in about the same
orbit as the earth around the pre-sun's matter. It
regathered like the earth did just prior and now orbits
earth.
The craters you see are the bits and peices from
the initial explosion several billion years ago.
> How do you explain the origin of all those craters
> if the creation was "peaceful and good" as
> described in Genesis 1:31?
You think God saying he separated waters above and
below the heavens is some "peaceful" thing?
ha ha ha...
That's a massive thing to do, why should it be peaceful?
Anyway, it all matches, the timing is dead on, the
phases used being right are astronomical in odds,
earth's water regathering, land rising out of the
waters (as earth's initial matter regathers), planets
forming, the sun forming and lighting up etc...
It all matches.
God was right.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described planet formation BEFORE science did:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/planets.htm
Chris Hall
sa...@teleport.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> The moon is merely matter that was in about the same
> orbit as the earth around the pre-sun's matter. It
> regathered like the earth did just prior and now orbits
> earth.
This whole thread was started because new evidence has come to light that
makes the case for impact even stronger. The moon can't have formed in the
same way as the Earth because it's composition is different, the proportional
size of the moon's core is very much smaller.
But you know this John, you don't need me or anyone else to tell you, you're
just a little annoyed because it doesn't fit in with the bumper book of myths.
--
Chris
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Ty Shrake
"John P. Boatwright" wrote:
>
> Kevin R. Henke wrote:
>
> > KRH: The early solar system was a very messy place. There were lots of
> > collisions between asteroids, moons, and planets. That's why there's so
> > many craters on the Moon, Mars, Mercury and elsewhere.
>
> That's what the explosion did, lot's of planetary matter
> blasted out. Some of it won't achive orbit around the
> sun and will come crashing back.
>
> The problem I see from the moon being expected to be
> from say a solar system induced impact is that in the
> initial explosion, said matter coming crashing back
> if it isn't orbiting, won't have the time needed to
> regather and cause any real impact type mass.
>
> Other than that, you only have matter >>> NORMAL <<<
> to the direction of the big bang to impact with
> earth.
Do you have the faintest clue what you're talking about? The earth
wasn't here before the Big Bang (now called the Inflation Model). Are
you seriously suggesting that it was?
I don't see that happening either, the chance
> of an accurate "hit" from some distant star exploding is
> about nil. AND it would have to happen quite a few
> times to get all the moons found in our solar system.
>
> Both methods of impact are too improbable.
Do you have a statistical analysis that shows this improbablity? Or is
this another case of "If I can't understand it then it must not have
happened."
>
> The moon is merely matter that was in about the same
> orbit as the earth around the pre-sun's matter. It
> regathered like the earth did just prior and now orbits
> earth.
OK, then take your thesis to the Harvard Astronomy Department and
defend it. Make sure you show them all of your calculations and data,
otherwise you won't have a very convincing argument.
You need to take a course in basic astronomy. A little basic physics
would help too.
Your friend and mine,
...Ty
Kevin R. Henke
John P. Boatwright wrote in message <36FB58...@teleport.com>...
Kevin R. Henke wrote:
> KRH: The early solar system was a very messy place. There were lots of
> collisions between asteroids, moons, and planets. That's why there's so
> many craters on the Moon, Mars, Mercury and elsewhere.
That's what the explosion did, lot's of planetary matter
blasted out. Some of it won't achive orbit around the
sun and will come crashing back.
KRH: Which explosion are you talking about? The solar system condensed from
a nebula that was full of dust, meteroids, ice, and asteroids. The solar
nebula formed from the debris of earlier supernovae. Some of the nebula
material condensed into planets and moons. Some of the meteroids and
asteroids impacted late and left craters that still exist. The real
problem for creationism is why these impact craters would form in a "good"
universe and how they all could have formed in only a few thousand years.
The problem I see from the moon being expected to be
from say a solar system induced impact is that in the
initial explosion, said matter coming crashing back
if it isn't orbiting, won't have the time needed to
regather and cause any real impact type mass.
KRH: What you are saying is not consistent with what we know about the solar
nebula.
Other than that, you only have matter >>> NORMAL <<<
to the direction of the big bang to impact with
earth. I don't see that happening either, the chance
of an accurate "hit" from some distant star exploding is
about nil. AND it would have to happen quite a few
times to get all the moons found in our solar system.
Both methods of impact are too improbable.
KRH: No. Collisions in the early solar system were quite common. That's
why we see so many craters on the Moon, Mars and elsewhere. The impact
hypothesis for the Moon is far more likely than a literal interpretation of
Genesis 1-2.
The moon is merely matter that was in about the same
orbit as the earth around the pre-sun's matter. It
regathered like the earth did just prior and now orbits
earth.
KRH: That's one hypothesis. But this hypothesis can't explain why the Moon
lacks iron if it condensed from the same part of the nebula as the Earth.
The craters you see are the bits and peices from
the initial explosion several billion years ago.
KRH: Which explosion?
> How do you explain the origin of all those craters
> if the creation was "peaceful and good" as
> described in Genesis 1:31?
You think God saying he separated waters above and
below the heavens is some "peaceful" thing?
ha ha ha...
KRH: Why is your god so violent? Where are the waters above? Genesis 1
indicates that the stars are located between the Earth and the "waters
above". How did this water get separated from the Earth's oceans and end
up billions of light years away at the edge of the universe? Obviously, the
writers of Genesis believed that the Earth and heavens were small. Stars
were just small lights up with the clouds (the waters above). The writers
of Genesis had no inspiration and no idea that the universe is billions of
light years acrossed. Why did this mythical separation of waters have to be
violent?
That's a massive thing to do, why should it be peaceful?
KRH: A lot of large things are peaceful. The Moon is geologically dead and
except for a few impacts is pretty quiet.
Anyway, it all matches, the timing is dead on, the
phases used being right are astronomical in odds,
earth's water regathering, land rising out of the
waters (as earth's initial matter regathers), planets
forming, the sun forming and lighting up etc...
It all matches.
God was right.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described planet formation BEFORE science did:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/planets.htm
KRH: Genesis is myth and is clearly erroneous.
Dore Williamson
their creation.
--
http://members.tripod.com/~spirit_of_prophecy/index.html
Dore
John P. Boatwright wrote in message <36FB58...@teleport.com>...
>Kevin R. Henke wrote:
>
>> KRH: The early solar system was a very messy place. There were lots of
>> collisions between asteroids, moons, and planets. That's why there's so
>> many craters on the Moon, Mars, Mercury and elsewhere.
>
>That's what the explosion did, lot's of planetary matter
>blasted out. Some of it won't achive orbit around the
>sun and will come crashing back.
>
>The problem I see from the moon being expected to be
>from say a solar system induced impact is that in the
>initial explosion, said matter coming crashing back
>if it isn't orbiting, won't have the time needed to
>regather and cause any real impact type mass.
>
>Other than that, you only have matter >>> NORMAL <<<
>to the direction of the big bang to impact with
>earth. I don't see that happening either, the chance
>of an accurate "hit" from some distant star exploding is
>about nil. AND it would have to happen quite a few
>times to get all the moons found in our solar system.
>
>Both methods of impact are too improbable.
>
>The moon is merely matter that was in about the same
>orbit as the earth around the pre-sun's matter. It
>regathered like the earth did just prior and now orbits
>earth.
>
>The craters you see are the bits and peices from
>the initial explosion several billion years ago.
>
>> How do you explain the origin of all those craters
>> if the creation was "peaceful and good" as
>> described in Genesis 1:31?
>
>You think God saying he separated waters above and
>below the heavens is some "peaceful" thing?
>
>ha ha ha...
>
>That's a massive thing to do, why should it be peaceful?
>
Matt Silberstein
<hsp...@epix.net>:
>Craters on planets and moons are caused by their cooling at the time of
>their creation.
Interesting notion. Do you have any evidence or models to back this
up? How do you propose that circular craters form when a sphere
contracts?
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
The Killing, Paths of Glory, Spartacus, Lolita, Dr Strangelove,
2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon,
The Shinning, Full Metal Jacket, and, last of all, but I hope
not the least, Eyes Wide Shut. I will miss him.
Kevin R. Henke
Dore Williamson wrote in message <7dlc82$9q7$1...@news1.epix.net>...
Craters on planets and moons are caused by their cooling at the time of
their creation.
KRH: Faults may result from cooling, but craters are consistent with
multiple violent impacts, see Chapter 3, "Lunar Surface Processes" in
Heiken, G.; D. Vaniman; and B.M. French," Lunar Sourcebook: A User's Guide
to the Moon," 1991, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Candle Jack
>Craters on planets and moons are caused by their cooling at the time of
>their creation
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA...gasp...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA...sniff...
You should really get your own sitcom.
--
Regards,
Candle "Jesus and Pals" Jack
Stephen Knight
wrote:
>Craters on planets and moons are caused by their cooling at the time of
>their creation.
Blink, blink.
Dore, you are supposed to take a Blue pill in the morning. Not a
Red pill. I know, chemical management can be a pain but in your case,
it's imperative. You don't want to sound crazy, do you?
Steve Knight #855
Knight of BAAWA
Ty Shrake
Dore Williamson wrote:
>
> Craters on planets and moons are caused by their cooling at the time of
> their creation.
Here we go again, Dore. For once in your miserable life will you
please research something before you blather about it?
Craters are totally consistent with high velocity impacts from
interplanetary matter such as asteroids. They have nothing to do with
the cooling of the body (planet or moon).
Your friend and mine,
...Ty
>
John P. Boatwright
> In article <36FB58...@teleport.com>,
> sa...@teleport.com wrote:
> > The moon is merely matter that was in about the same
> > orbit as the earth around the pre-sun's matter. It
> > regathered like the earth did just prior and now orbits
> > earth.
> This whole thread was started because new evidence has
> come to light that makes the case for impact even stronger.
Nah.
They admitted the moon has roughly the same matter
as earth (which is what I've been saying all along
in that you'd expect the moon's matter while the
moon formed to also coat the earth's outter surface).
I'm glad they could finally admit it.
About 2 years ago, piles of atheists were claiming
the moon's matter to be wildly different from earth's.
Obviously they were wrong.
> The moon can't have formed in the same way as the
> Earth because it's composition is different,
Nah.
From CNN's article, March 17 1999:
"Similarities in the mineral composition of the
Earth and the Moon indicate that they share a
common origin."
Obviously the composition is the same or they
would have said "not the same".
> the proportional
> size of the moon's core is very much smaller.
The moon is smaller than the earth... yes...
So what of it?
> But you know this John, you don't need me or anyone
> else to tell you, you're just a little annoyed
> because it doesn't fit in with the bumper book of myths.
You took the time to reply with what... an error
on your part and an obvious fact, then claimed those
void the previous post.
ha ha ha...
Odd.
John P. Boatwright
> "John P. Boatwright" wrote:
> > Kevin R. Henke wrote:
> > > KRH: The early solar system was a very messy place. There were lots of
> > > collisions between asteroids, moons, and planets. That's why there's so
> > > many craters on the Moon, Mars, Mercury and elsewhere.
> > That's what the explosion did, lot's of planetary matter
> > blasted out. Some of it won't achive orbit around the
> > sun and will come crashing back.
> > The problem I see from the moon being expected to be
> > from say a solar system induced impact is that in the
> > initial explosion, said matter coming crashing back
> > if it isn't orbiting, won't have the time needed to
> > regather and cause any real impact type mass.
> > Other than that, you only have matter >>> NORMAL <<<
> > to the direction of the big bang to impact with
> > earth.
> Do you have the faintest clue what you're talking about?
Of course.
> The earth wasn't here before the Big Bang (now called the
> Inflation Model). Are you seriously suggesting that it was?
It's assumed the original matter for the earth was around
after the big bang, though both science and the bible
claim only lighter elements as the initial form.
Or are you claiming the earth just "poof" and was here?
ha ha ha...
Get a clue Ty, the initial matter for earth was absolutely
given by God as "waters", not soil, not land, not gold,
not etc... but "waters".
The Hebrews had no term for hydrogen, and given water
in sun spots on the sun, God was easily right in saying
"waters" since science ADMITS that the original form
of most all matter was hydrogen and/or other lighter
elements. The heavier elements showed up after fusion
started in stars.
God even had this right in that he said "separated
the light from the darkness" >>> BEFORE <<< he said
the lands formed. This is right as well since fusion
making heavier elements had to have occurred BEFORE
the lands could appear... no heavier elements forming,
only "waters" or lighter elements would have been
around... no land... Again God was right.
And again, God was right in saying "waters" for the
initial form of the earth and heavens. Science agrees
that only lighter elements were around, the earth's
intial matter had to be lighter elements.
> I don't see that happening either, the chance
> > of an accurate "hit" from some distant star exploding is
> > about nil. AND it would have to happen quite a few
> > times to get all the moons found in our solar system.
> > Both methods of impact are too improbable.
> Do you have a statistical analysis that shows this
> improbablity? Or is this another case of "If I
> can't understand it then it must not have happened."
Look Ty, the distances to the stars are measured in
LIGHT YEARS
Do you have any idea how far away the nearest star is?
Do you realize that the probability for an impact from a
single peice of matter drops by the >>> CUBE <<< of the
distance?
Well?
> > The moon is merely matter that was in about the same
> > orbit as the earth around the pre-sun's matter. It
> > regathered like the earth did just prior and now orbits
> > earth.
> OK, then take your thesis to the Harvard Astronomy Department and
> defend it. Make sure you show them all of your calculations and data,
> otherwise you won't have a very convincing argument.
ha ha ha...
Show a paper proving sizable EXPECTED impacts originating
from outside our solar system.
> You need to take a course in basic astronomy. A little
> basic physics would help too.
Why?
> Your friend and mine,
> ...Ty
> > The craters you see are the bits and peices from
> > the initial explosion several billion years ago.
> > > How do you explain the origin of all those craters
> > > if the creation was "peaceful and good" as
> > > described in Genesis 1:31?
> > You think God saying he separated waters above and
> > below the heavens is some "peaceful" thing?
> > ha ha ha...
> > That's a massive thing to do, why should it be peaceful?
> > Anyway, it all matches, the timing is dead on, the
> > phases used being right are astronomical in odds,
> > earth's water regathering, land rising out of the
> > waters (as earth's initial matter regathers), planets
> > forming, the sun forming and lighting up etc...
> > It all matches.
> > God was right.
> > God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Chris Hall
sa...@teleport.com wrote:
> Chris Hall wrote:
>
> > In article <36FB58...@teleport.com>,
>
> > sa...@teleport.com wrote:
>
> > > orbit as the earth around the pre-sun's matter. It
> > > regathered like the earth did just prior and now orbits
> > > earth.
>
> > come to light that makes the case for impact even stronger.
>
> Nah.
>
> They admitted the moon has roughly the same matter
> as earth (which is what I've been saying all along
> in that you'd expect the moon's matter while the
> moon formed to also coat the earth's outter surface).
?????
> I'm glad they could finally admit it.
>
> About 2 years ago, piles of atheists were claiming
> the moon's matter to be wildly different from earth's.
>
> Obviously they were wrong.
It is SIMILAR, not 100% the same, hence the theory that it formed in a
different way.
> > The moon can't have formed in the same way as the
> > Earth because it's composition is different,
>
> Nah.
>
> From CNN's article, March 17 1999:
>
> "Similarities in the mineral composition of the
> Earth and the Moon indicate that they share a
> common origin."
Naughty little John, you snipped this a bit early didn't you? The entire
paragraph in the CNN article from March 17 1999 titled 'Data support theory
that moon was ripped from Earth', reads:
"Similarities in the mineral composition of the
Earth and the Moon indicate that they share a
common origin. However, if they had simply formed
from the same cloud of rocks and dust, the moon
would have a core similar in proportion to the Earth's."
Someone unkind might think you did this on purpose.
> Obviously the composition is the same or they
> would have said "not the same".
No, if the composition was the same they'd have said "identical".
> > the proportional
> > size of the moon's core is very much smaller.
>
> The moon is smaller than the earth... yes...
>
> So what of it?
Therefore the core is going to be "proportionally" smaller, you simply ignored
"proportional" to set up this strawman:
> You took the time to reply with what... an error
> on your part and an obvious fact, then claimed those
> void the previous post.
I said proportionally doofus, this means that the cores of both the Earth and
moon should be the same size in proportion to their mass, if they formed in
the same way. This is not the case, the Earth's core is 30% of the planet's
mass, the moon's core is less than 4%.
> ha ha ha...
>
> Odd.
Yeah, whatever.
--
Chris #1256
Homepage (as you can tell I don't design web pages for a living):
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slander
Doomsday, but when? Are you prepared?
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slander/EndTimes/eow.html
Shooty
<ch...@mailroom.com> wrote:
SNIP
I said proportionally doofus, this means that the cores of both the Earth and
moon should be the same size in proportion to their mass, if they formed in
the same way. This is not the case, the Earth's core is 30% of the planet's
mass, the moon's core is less than 4%.
You aren't familiar with Bloaters exotic theory about how the Earth was formed?
Well, to tie in with his convoluted reading of Genesis and his billion
year days (or whatever) of creation he has the Earth existing before the
big bang and space expands around it. To tie in with the timeline and
descriptions of Genesis a whole load of matter is dumped on Earth when the
solar system is formed, that's what the moon is there for. He expects the
core to be different. It's the original Earth.
Shooty
Kevin R. Henke
John P. Boatwright wrote in message <36FF0F...@teleport.com>...
>Chris Hall wrote:
>
>> In article <36FB58...@teleport.com>,
>
>> sa...@teleport.com wrote:
>
>> > The moon is merely matter that was in about the same
>> > orbit as the earth around the pre-sun's matter. It
>> > regathered like the earth did just prior and now orbits
>> > earth.
>
>> This whole thread was started because new evidence has
>> come to light that makes the case for impact even stronger.
>
>Nah.
>
>They admitted the moon has roughly the same matter
>as earth (which is what I've been saying all along
>in that you'd expect the moon's matter while the
>moon formed to also coat the earth's outter surface).
>
>
>About 2 years ago, piles of atheists were claiming
>the moon's matter to be wildly different from earth's.
>
>Obviously they were wrong.
KRH: No, the Moon is depleted in iron and volatiles
(including hydrogen) when compared with the Earth.
>
>> The moon can't have formed in the same way as the
>> Earth because it's composition is different,
>
>Nah.
KRH: Just don't say, "Nah." Look at the chemistry
of Moon rocks. Why is the Moon depleted in iron?
The best hypothesis says that this is because a
Mars-sized planet collided with the early Earth.
Material was ejected from the Earth's iron-depleted
crust/mantle and formed the Moon.
>
>From CNN's article, March 17 1999:
>
> "Similarities in the mineral composition of the
> Earth and the Moon indicate that they share a
> common origin."
KRH: Don't trust CNN. Get a peer-reviewed
journal article and find out what they mean by
similarities. How similar? Are they looking
at all elements or just some?
>
>Obviously the composition is the same or they
>would have said "not the same".
>
>> the proportional
>> size of the moon's core is very much smaller.
>
>The moon is smaller than the earth... yes...
>
>So what of it?
>
>> But you know this John, you don't need me or anyone
>> else to tell you, you're just a little annoyed
>> because it doesn't fit in with the bumper book of myths.
>
>You took the time to reply with what... an error
>on your part and an obvious fact, then claimed those
>void the previous post.
>
>ha ha ha...
>
>Odd.
Kevin R. Henke
John P. Boatwright wrote in message <36FF14...@teleport.com>...
KRH: Hydrogen, helium and maybe beryllium formed
during the Big Bang. The heavier elements that
formed our solar system came from supernovae.
>
>Or are you claiming the earth just "poof" and was here?
>
>ha ha ha...
>
>Get a clue Ty, the initial matter for earth was absolutely
>given by God as "waters", not soil, not land, not gold,
>not etc... but "waters".
KRH: Stellar chemistry says otherwise. Water in
space exists as ice.
>
>The Hebrews had no term for hydrogen, and given water
>in sun spots on the sun, God was easily right in saying
>"waters" since science ADMITS that the original form
>of most all matter was hydrogen and/or other lighter
>elements. The heavier elements showed up after fusion
>started in stars.
>
KRH: Give me a reference to show that water (H2O)
can exist in solar sunspots. Since when is it
appropriate to equal H2O with H2?
>God even had this right in that he said "separated
>the light from the darkness" >>> BEFORE <<< he said
>the lands formed. This is right as well since fusion
>making heavier elements had to have occurred BEFORE
>the lands could appear... no heavier elements forming,
>only "waters" or lighter elements would have been
>around... no land... Again God was right.
KRH: The oxygen is water also forms from nuclear
fusion.
>
>And again, God was right in saying "waters" for the
>initial form of the earth and heavens. Science agrees
>that only lighter elements were around, the earth's
>intial matter had to be lighter elements.
KRH: No, heavier elements were around when the
solar system formed 4.6 billion years ago. Large
stars that formed and died between 20 and 5
billion years ago exploded to form the heavier
elements that went into producing our solar
system.
>
>> I don't see that happening either, the chance
>> > of an accurate "hit" from some distant star exploding is
>> > about nil. AND it would have to happen quite a few
>> > times to get all the moons found in our solar system.
>
>> > Both methods of impact are too improbable.
>
>> Do you have a statistical analysis that shows this
>> improbablity? Or is this another case of "If I
>> can't understand it then it must not have happened."
>
>Look Ty, the distances to the stars are measured in
>
> LIGHT YEARS
>
>Do you have any idea how far away the nearest star is?
KRH: Our solar system makes one orbit around the
galaxy in 250 million years. Our solar system is 4.6
billion years old. The Universe is 15-20 billion years.
Over that large amount of time, our solar sytem could
have easily condensed from the debris of older
supernovae. Other debris could have entered our
solar system from time to time. Nebula certainly
contain enough debris to blanket planets, moons,
and asteroids with craters.
>
>Do you realize that the probability for an impact from a
>single peice of matter drops by the >>> CUBE <<< of the
>distance?
>
>Well?
KRH: Yet there's enough debris out there that impacts are
frequent. Just in the past 90 years, we had a substantial
impact in Siberia. Recently, parts of a comet hit Jupiter
and caused large explosions.
>
>> > The moon is merely matter that was in about the same
>> > orbit as the earth around the pre-sun's matter. It
>> > regathered like the earth did just prior and now orbits
>> > earth.
>
>> OK, then take your thesis to the Harvard Astronomy Department and
>> defend it. Make sure you show them all of your calculations and data,
>> otherwise you won't have a very convincing argument.
>
>ha ha ha...
>
>Show a paper proving sizable EXPECTED impacts originating
>from outside our solar system.
KRH: Meteorites ultimately formed from the debris of supernovae.
This debris collected to form our solar system. So, meteorites
are evidence that solids originated outside our solar system
more than 4.6 billion years ago. There's your "proof."
>
>> You need to take a course in basic astronomy. A little
>> basic physics would help too.
>
>Why?
KRH: Because an astronomy course would answer
many of your questions and probably correct some
of your ideas and claims.
>
>> Your friend and mine,
>
>> ...Ty
>
>> > The craters you see are the bits and peices from
>> > the initial explosion several billion years ago.
>
>> > > How do you explain the origin of all those craters
>> > > if the creation was "peaceful and good" as
>> > > described in Genesis 1:31?
>
>> > You think God saying he separated waters above and
>> > below the heavens is some "peaceful" thing?
>
>> > ha ha ha...
>
>> > That's a massive thing to do, why should it be peaceful?
>
>> > Anyway, it all matches, the timing is dead on, the
>> > phases used being right are astronomical in odds,
>> > earth's water regathering, land rising out of the
>> > waters (as earth's initial matter regathers), planets
>> > forming, the sun forming and lighting up etc...
>
>> > It all matches.
>
>> > God was right.
KRH: No it doesn't and that's why Humphreys and other
creationists keep failing to explain the large and old
Universe with a 6,000 year old "creation model."
Stellar chemistry effectively explains elemental
abundances in our solar system. Nuclear fusion
and the Big Bang are reality, Genesis is not.
If you took an astronomy course, you would learn
that.
Ty Shrake
The bible makes no credible claim as to what elements existed in the
early universe. Your cliff hanging interpretation of Genesis lends no
additional credibility to it.
> Or are you claiming the earth just "poof" and was here?
>
> ha ha ha...
Absolutely not, Boatwrong. The earth formed as an aberration in the
solar accretion disk, just as the rest of the planets were.
>
> Get a clue Ty, the initial matter for earth was absolutely
> given by God as "waters", not soil, not land, not gold,
> not etc... but "waters".
Your pathetic. The initial matter for the earth was provided by the
deaths of early stars. This is how and why we have heavy elements.
Hydrogen was not the only element around when the earth formed. The term
"waters" is a term with no scientific context or importance because it
is a poetic term used in a metaphorical context that has no scientific
significance whatsoever. Your efforts to legitamize Genesis as a
scientific description completely fail to take this into account.
>
> The Hebrews had no term for hydrogen, and given water
> in sun spots on the sun, God was easily right in saying
> "waters" since science ADMITS that the original form
> of most all matter was hydrogen and/or other lighter
> elements. The heavier elements showed up after fusion
> started in stars.
Your statement "...and given water in sun spots on the sun, ..." is
completely nonsensical.
>
> God even had this right in that he said "separated
> the light from the darkness" >>> BEFORE <<< he said
> the lands formed. This is right as well since fusion
> making heavier elements had to have occurred BEFORE
> the lands could appear... no heavier elements forming,
> only "waters" or lighter elements would have been
> around... no land... Again God was right.
>
> And again, God was right in saying "waters" for the
> initial form of the earth and heavens.
Wrong. The earth formed well after heavy elements were present.
Hydrogen and other light elements are not sufficient by themselves to
create a planet like earth. In fact, if it weren't for the heavy
elements earth as we know it wouldn't be here.
Science agrees
> that only lighter elements were around, the earth's
> intial matter had to be lighter elements.
Wrong. See my comments above.
>
> > I don't see that happening either, the chance
> > > of an accurate "hit" from some distant star exploding is
> > > about nil. AND it would have to happen quite a few
> > > times to get all the moons found in our solar system.
>
> > > Both methods of impact are too improbable.
>
> > Do you have a statistical analysis that shows this
> > improbablity? Or is this another case of "If I
> > can't understand it then it must not have happened."
>
> Look Ty, the distances to the stars are measured in
>
> LIGHT YEARS
No shit, sherlock... (2.99 x 10e8 meters/second) x (3.1536 x 10e7
sec/yr)= ~ 6 trillion miles.
I've done the metric to english conversion for you because I know you
have trouble with that sort of thing.
>
> Do you have any idea how far away the nearest star is?
As a matter of fact I do: The binary star system Alpha and Proxima
Centuari are approximately 4.3 light years from your keyboard. Any
other questions?
>
> Do you realize that the probability for an impact from a
> single peice of matter drops by the >>> CUBE <<< of the
> distance?
As a former physics major the answer to your question is: YES.
>
> Well?
Well how about you count the number of asteroids in the early solar
system and see how probable an impact becomes.
>
> > > The moon is merely matter that was in about the same
> > > orbit as the earth around the pre-sun's matter. It
> > > regathered like the earth did just prior and now orbits
> > > earth.
>
> > OK, then take your thesis to the Harvard Astronomy Department and
> > defend it. Make sure you show them all of your calculations and data,
> > otherwise you won't have a very convincing argument.
>
> ha ha ha...
>
> Show a paper proving sizable EXPECTED impacts originating
> from outside our solar system.
Now I know you're an idiot. The impacts were from objects INSIDE the
solar system. Some of those objects still remain... it's called the
asteroid belt.
>
> > You need to take a course in basic astronomy. A little
> > basic physics would help too.
>
> Why?
Because you've proven conclusively in this thread that you have
absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Your friend and mine,
...Ty
>
> > Your friend and mine,
>
> > ...Ty
>
> > > The craters you see are the bits and peices from
> > > the initial explosion several billion years ago.
>
> > > > How do you explain the origin of all those craters
> > > > if the creation was "peaceful and good" as
> > > > described in Genesis 1:31?
>
> > > You think God saying he separated waters above and
> > > below the heavens is some "peaceful" thing?
>
> > > ha ha ha...
>
> > > That's a massive thing to do, why should it be peaceful?
>
> > > Anyway, it all matches, the timing is dead on, the
> > > phases used being right are astronomical in odds,
> > > earth's water regathering, land rising out of the
> > > waters (as earth's initial matter regathers), planets
> > > forming, the sun forming and lighting up etc...
>
> > > It all matches.
>
> > > God was right.
>
Shane D. Killian
>
> Chris Hall wrote:
>
> > This whole thread was started because new evidence has
> > come to light that makes the case for impact even stronger.
>
> Nah.
>
> They admitted the moon has roughly the same matter
> as earth (which is what I've been saying all along
> in that you'd expect the moon's matter while the
> moon formed to also coat the earth's outter surface).
>
leaves the imact idea as being the best bet.
> About 2 years ago, piles of atheists were claiming
> the moon's matter to be wildly different from earth's.
>
> > the proportional
> > size of the moon's core is very much smaller.
>
> The moon is smaller than the earth... yes...
>
--
Shane D. Killian -- sha...@vnet.net -- http://users.vnet.net/shanek
"uuunnn k mmmmmmk hhhhhhhh khbbbbbbbbbbbh
gnhjjjjjjjjjjj rrrrrrrrrddddfc gvb uyyyyyyyhubbbbbbb"
--Sinclair Mitchell Killian, born 1/29/98
Chris Hall
an...@mrsystems.co.uk (Shooty) wrote:
>
> Well, to tie in with his convoluted reading of Genesis and his billion
> year days (or whatever) of creation he has the Earth existing before the
> big bang and space expands around it. To tie in with the timeline and
> descriptions of Genesis a whole load of matter is dumped on Earth when the
> solar system is formed, that's what the moon is there for. He expects the
> core to be different. It's the original Earth.
I must admit I haven't really been keeping up with Boaty's theories recently,
I think I gave up when birds evolved from fish, so the above is a new one on
me.
I noticed he's not bothered replying after I pointed out his somewhat
dishonest quoting from the CNN article, an article that directly contradicted
the point he was trying to make
--
Chris.
John P. Boatwright
> an...@mrsystems.co.uk (Shooty) wrote:
> > Well, to tie in with his convoluted reading of Genesis and his billion
> > year days (or whatever) of creation he has the Earth existing before the
> > big bang and space expands around it. To tie in with the timeline and
> > descriptions of Genesis a whole load of matter is dumped on Earth when the
> > solar system is formed, that's what the moon is there for. He expects the
> > core to be different. It's the original Earth.
> I must admit I haven't really been keeping up with Boaty's theories recently,
> I think I gave up when birds evolved from fish, so the above is a new one on
> me.
I said FLIGHT would have been highly likely from organizisms
living near the surface of the water, rather than land
creatures attaining flight.
Fins allow movement through water and the most energy
sources available would have been at the surface of
the water. Hence swimming creatures near the surface
would have occasionally had contact with the air, the
fin structures would have been a good basis for eventual
flight.
> I noticed he's not bothered replying after I pointed out his somewhat
> dishonest quoting from the CNN article, an article that directly contradicted
> the point he was trying to make
It did not contradict, the article confirmed the composition
of the moon and earth at their surfaces as being similar.
That's what I said all along.
Their further statement that the core is lighter for
the moon is no big deal. It's well known that lighter
elements do in fact stay out further, hence in the
re-gathering, it's expected that the moon would be
less dense in the core when considering the earth/moon
as a singular mass gathering, yet ending up as two
separate masses.
It also explains why the moon's center of mass
is offset towards the earth, hence the moon always
showing the same "side" to earth.
It's simple stuff.
Yet you guys whining about it as if it's some
strange topic...
ha ha ha...
================================================
"Formation while in orbit" is a standard theory.
================================================
ha ha ha...
The biggest problem the "planitary impact" theory
has for the moon's formation is that it "requires that
the earth melted throughout, following the impact,
whereas the earth's geochemistry does not indicate
such a radical melting" (Encarta Encyclopedia).
Again, this is simple stuff guys, you wanting
to disbelieve God making the universe and getting
Genesis right is your problem.
God was absolutely right in Genesis.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described planet formation BEFORE science did.
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/planets.htm
John P. Boatwright
> In article <36FF0F...@teleport.com>,
> sa...@teleport.com wrote:
> > Chris Hall wrote:
> > > In article <36FB58...@teleport.com>,
> > > sa...@teleport.com wrote:
> > > > The moon is merely matter that was in about the same
> > > > orbit as the earth around the pre-sun's matter. It
> > > > regathered like the earth did just prior and now orbits
> > > > earth.
> > > This whole thread was started because new evidence has
> > > come to light that makes the case for impact even stronger.
> > Nah.
> > They admitted the moon has roughly the same matter
> > as earth (which is what I've been saying all along
> > in that you'd expect the moon's matter while the
> > moon formed to also coat the earth's outter surface).
> ?????
It's a standard theory:
"Formation while in orbit".
Sheeze...
> > I'm glad they could finally admit it.
> > About 2 years ago, piles of atheists were claiming
> > the moon's matter to be wildly different from earth's.
> > Obviously they were wrong.
> It is SIMILAR, not 100% the same, hence the theory that it formed in a
> different way.
The element's tend to be lighter, but that's
what's expected.
> > > The moon can't have formed in the same way as the
> > > Earth because it's composition is different,
> > Nah.
> > From CNN's article, March 17 1999:
> > "Similarities in the mineral composition of the
> > Earth and the Moon indicate that they share a
> > common origin."
> Naughty little John, you snipped this a bit early didn't you? The entire
> paragraph in the CNN article from March 17 1999 titled 'Data support theory
> that moon was ripped from Earth', reads:
> "Similarities in the mineral composition of the
> Earth and the Moon indicate that they share a
> common origin. However, if they had simply formed
> from the same cloud of rocks and dust, the moon
> would have a core similar in proportion to the Earth's."
> Someone unkind might think you did this on purpose.
The point was adequately made that the moon's surface
matter is in fact similar to earth's surface matter.
========================
That's the entire point.
========================
The core being lighter is EXPECTED since the earth
would be attracting relatively more of the heavier
elements than the lighter ones than the moon would.
Yet you have to deal with the "nasty" glitch in
the "impact theory":
=================================================
"The major problem with the (impact) theory is
that it would seem to require that the earth
melted throughout, following the impact, whereas
the earth's geochemistry does not indicate such
a radical melting."
-- Encarta Encyclopedia
=================================================
Hmm.... looks like the "impact theory" crashed
and burned ... AGAIN.
ha ha ha...
That's too bad.
> > Obviously the composition is the same or they
> > would have said "not the same".
> No, if the composition was the same they'd have said "identical".
Similar, same, it's just similar matter at
the surfaces of both the moon and earth...
and easily proving God was right in Genesis.
> > > the proportional
> > > size of the moon's core is very much smaller.
> > The moon is smaller than the earth... yes...
> > So what of it?
> Therefore the core is going to be "proportionally" smaller, you simply ignored
> "proportional" to set up this strawman:
What???
It's ASSUMED the core is smaller since the moon
is physically smaller.
Or are you talking density while saying "smaller"?
If so, you have an odd way of discussing density
while NOT actually saying density in the sentence.
> > You took the time to reply with what... an error
> > on your part and an obvious fact, then claimed those
> > void the previous post.
> I said proportionally doofus, this means that the cores of both the Earth and
> moon should be the same size in proportion to their mass, if they formed in
> the same way. This is not the case, the Earth's core is 30% of the planet's
> mass, the moon's core is less than 4%.
There is an INHERENT sorting of heavier matter to where
the majority of matter is going... to the earth. The
final matter gathering would be relatively lighter and
some would make the moon, while the rest finishes
coating the earth's surface.
It's simple stuff.
Kevin R. Henke
John P. Boatwright wrote in message <3700AC...@teleport.com>...
KRH: CNN or not, you're wrong the Moon is depleted in iron and
volatiles when compared with the Earth. You need to rely on
peer-reviewed astronomy journals and not non-scientific
news organizations.
>
>Their further statement that the core is lighter for
>the moon is no big deal. It's well known that lighter
>elements do in fact stay out further, hence in the
>re-gathering, it's expected that the moon would be
>less dense in the core when considering the earth/moon
>as a singular mass gathering, yet ending up as two
>separate masses.
KRH: What makes you say that? Why do lighter
elements "stay out" further? Do you know that
bowling balls and feathers fall at the same rate
in the same gravitational field?
>
>It also explains why the moon's center of mass
>is offset towards the earth, hence the moon always
>showing the same "side" to earth.
>
>It's simple stuff.
KRH: You need to take Physics 101
and Astronomy 101.
>
>Yet you guys whining about it as if it's some
>strange topic...
>
>ha ha ha...
>
>================================================
>"Formation while in orbit" is a standard theory.
>================================================
>
>ha ha ha...
>
>The biggest problem the "planitary impact" theory
>has for the moon's formation is that it "requires that
>the earth melted throughout, following the impact,
>whereas the earth's geochemistry does not indicate
>such a radical melting" (Encarta Encyclopedia).
KRH: What's the date on this and is it peer-reviewed
so that it has some reliability?
>
>Again, this is simple stuff guys, you wanting
>to disbelieve God making the universe and getting
>Genesis right is your problem.
>
>God was absolutely right in Genesis.
>
Kevin R. Henke
John P. Boatwright wrote in message <3700B1...@teleport.com>...
>Chris Hall wrote:
>
>> In article <36FF0F...@teleport.com>,
>
>> > > sa...@teleport.com wrote:
>
>> > > > The moon is merely matter that was in about the same
>> > > > orbit as the earth around the pre-sun's matter. It
>> > > > regathered like the earth did just prior and now orbits
>> > > > earth.
>
>> > > This whole thread was started because new evidence has
>> > > come to light that makes the case for impact even stronger.
>
>> > Nah.
>
>> > They admitted the moon has roughly the same matter
>> > as earth (which is what I've been saying all along
>> > in that you'd expect the moon's matter while the
>> > moon formed to also coat the earth's outter surface).
>
>> ?????
>
>It's a standard theory:
>
> "Formation while in orbit".
>
>Sheeze...
KRH: It's a hypothesis and do you know the difference
between theory and hypothesis?
KRH: CNN or not, you're wrong. The Moon is depleted
in iron and volatiles when compared with the Earth.
>
>The core being lighter is EXPECTED since the earth
>would be attracting relatively more of the heavier
>elements than the lighter ones than the moon would.
>
>Yet you have to deal with the "nasty" glitch in
>the "impact theory":
>
> =================================================
> "The major problem with the (impact) theory is
> that it would seem to require that the earth
> melted throughout, following the impact, whereas
> the earth's geochemistry does not indicate such
Clark Dorman
> > an...@mrsystems.co.uk (Shooty) wrote:
>
> > > Well, to tie in with his convoluted reading of Genesis and his billion
> > > year days (or whatever) of creation he has the Earth existing before the
> > > big bang and space expands around it. To tie in with the timeline and
> > > descriptions of Genesis a whole load of matter is dumped on Earth when the
> > > solar system is formed, that's what the moon is there for. He expects the
> > > core to be different. It's the original Earth.
>
> > I must admit I haven't really been keeping up with Boaty's theories recently,
> > I think I gave up when birds evolved from fish, so the above is a new one on
> > me.
>
> I said FLIGHT would have been highly likely from organizisms
> living near the surface of the water, rather than land
> creatures attaining flight.
You mean, like...flying fish?
> Fins allow movement through water and the most energy
> sources available would have been at the surface of
> the water. Hence swimming creatures near the surface
> would have occasionally had contact with the air, the
> fin structures would have been a good basis for eventual
> flight.
Excellent. You have now figured out why there are flying fish.
Now, why didn't they become better flyers? Two possible answers:
1. Air breathing is a bit of a problem at one go. 2.
structurally and musculature-wise, fish aren't built to maintain
flight and can't get there from here.
Have you ever seen bird (flying birds, that is) swim underwater?
Some of them are pretty amazing, they use their wings under-water
to "fly" and catch fish. They can't stay under very long but
they don't need to. And, it sure looks like some of them decided
that it was such a good lifestyle they decided to stay on the
ground and in the water permanently (hence, penguins).
--
Clark Dorman "Evolution is cleverer than you are."
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/D.html -Francis Crick
Shane D. Killian
>
> I noticed he's not bothered replying after I pointed out his somewhat
> dishonest quoting from the CNN article, an article that directly
> contradicted the point he was trying to make
>
Shane D. Killian
>
> Chris Hall wrote:
>
> > different way.
>
> The element's tend to be lighter, but that's
> what's expected.
>
Remember Galileo? Items always fall at the same rate regardless of
weight? But you'd probably say to Galileo, "Ha ha ha...what a pile."
> > Naughty little John, you snipped this a bit early didn't you? The
> > entire paragraph in the CNN article from March 17 1999 titled 'Data
> > support theory that moon was ripped from Earth', reads:
>
> > "Similarities in the mineral composition of the
> > Earth and the Moon indicate that they share a
> > common origin. However, if they had simply formed
> > from the same cloud of rocks and dust, the moon
> > would have a core similar in proportion to the Earth's."
>
> > Someone unkind might think you did this on purpose.
>
> The point was adequately made that the moon's surface
> matter is in fact similar to earth's surface matter.
>
But it is the point that the moon does not have a similar core which is
devastating.
> The core being lighter is EXPECTED since the earth
> would be attracting relatively more of the heavier
> elements than the lighter ones than the moon would.
>
No, they wouldn't. Again, see Galileo.
> > I said proportionally doofus, this means that the cores of both the
> > Earth and moon should be the same size in proportion to their mass, if
> > they formed in the same way. This is not the case, the Earth's core is
> > 30% of the planet's mass, the moon's core is less than 4%.
>
> There is an INHERENT sorting of heavier matter to where
> the majority of matter is going... to the earth.
>
What is the mechanism behind this sorting? Write a paper on it and win
the Nobel prize.
Shooty
SNIP
It also explains why the moon's center of mass
is offset towards the earth, hence the moon always
showing the same "side" to earth.
It's simple stuff.
-----------------
But, it would seem to be too difficult for you.
The moon rotates at a speed that keeps the same face to Earth, (more or
less) I have never heard anywhere that it's center of mass is offset to
anywhere.
Shooty
John P. Boatwright
> In article <3700AC...@teleport.com>, sa...@teleport.com wrote:
> It also explains why the moon's center of mass
> is offset towards the earth, hence the moon always
> showing the same "side" to earth.
> It's simple stuff.
> -----------------
> But, it would seem to be too difficult for you.
Seriously, it's simple stuff.
> The moon rotates at a speed that keeps the same face to Earth, (more or
> less) I have never heard anywhere that it's center of mass is offset to
> anywhere.
So because you "never heard anywhere", you won't believe
it since a theist mentioned it.
Typical.
Regardless, it is a known fact and does tend to confirm
the re-gathering of matter to form the earth and moon.
Shooty
Shooty wrote:
> In article <3700AC...@teleport.com>, sa...@teleport.com wrote:
> It also explains why the moon's center of mass
> is offset towards the earth, hence the moon always
> showing the same "side" to earth.
> It's simple stuff.
> -----------------
> But, it would seem to be too difficult for you.
Seriously, it's simple stuff.
> The moon rotates at a speed that keeps the same face to Earth, (more or
> less) I have never heard anywhere that it's center of mass is offset to
> anywhere.
So because you "never heard anywhere", you won't believe
it since a theist mentioned it.
Typical.
Regardless, it is a known fact and does tend to confirm
the re-gathering of matter to form the earth and moon.
----------------------------
OK what is the source for your known fact?
I think Any astronomy book will tell you that the Moon rotates oncew every
24 hours, it's nothing to do with it having an offset mass, that's the
most stupid think I ever heard. You made it up didn't you?
Shooty
Dore Williamson
at which it cools, at the time of cooling and what changes are occurring at
that time, as all those certain elements, materials and gases combine to
form a new material, or element. Many materials cool with concave round
craters forming. Have you ever looked at iron in it's raw state?
As many craters there are, especially on the moon, it would have to be a
constant massive amount of bombardment, and then suddenly stop, as the
bombardments are somewhat less at this time. And the earth would also have
as many, but it doesn't, so it cannot be by bombardments.
--
http://members.tripod.com/~spirit_of_prophecy/index.html
Dore
Matt Silberstein wrote in message <370535a3...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>In talk.origins I read this message from "Dore Williamson"
><hsp...@epix.net>:
>
>>Craters on planets and moons are caused by their cooling at the time of
>>their creation.
>
Tristan Styles
<hsp...@epix.net> writes
>It all depends on the gases, elements and materials are present and the rate
>at which it cools, at the time of cooling and what changes are occurring at
>that time, as all those certain elements, materials and gases combine to
>form a new material, or element. Many materials cool with concave round
>craters forming. Have you ever looked at iron in it's raw state?
>
>As many craters there are, especially on the moon, it would have to be a
>constant massive amount of bombardment, and then suddenly stop, as the
No, just bombardment dwindling over a [very] long time.
>bombardments are somewhat less at this time. And the earth would also have
>as many, but it doesn't, so it cannot be by bombardments.
Wrong, the earth has tectonics and weathering to erase craters.
For your next trick, explain overlapping craters.
>
>--
>http://members.tripod.com/~spirit_of_prophecy/index.html
>Dore
>Matt Silberstein wrote in message <370535a3...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>>In talk.origins I read this message from "Dore Williamson"
>><hsp...@epix.net>:
>>
>>>Craters on planets and moons are caused by their cooling at the time of
>>>their creation.
>>
>>Interesting notion. Do you have any evidence or models to back this
>>up? How do you propose that circular craters form when a sphere
>>contracts?
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>
>>Matt Silberstein
>>-------------------------------------------------------
>>The Killing, Paths of Glory, Spartacus, Lolita, Dr Strangelove,
>>2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon,
>>The Shinning, Full Metal Jacket, and, last of all, but I hope
>>not the least, Eyes Wide Shut. I will miss him.
>>
>
>
---
Tristan Styles sa#1485
Failure is not an Option
It is Standard Operating Procedure
Kevin R. Henke
Dore Williamson wrote in message <7e5jpc$bmm$1...@news1.epix.net>...
It all depends on the gases, elements and materials are present and the rate
at which it cools, at the time of cooling and what changes are occurring at
that time, as all those certain elements, materials and gases combine to
form a new material, or element.
KRH: You should be careful on how you use the term: "element." Elements
combine to form compounds. Remember your chemistry.
Many materials cool with concave round
craters forming. Have you ever looked at iron in it's raw state?
KRH: Cooling metals may form convex surfaces or botryoidal textures, but
these don't look anything like craters. The shapes of Moon craters clearly
indicate that they formed from impacts. This is based on laboratory tests
and field observations of known meteorite impact craters on Earth. See:
Heiken, G.; Vaniman, D.; and French, B.M., 1991, "Lunar Sourcebook: A User's
Guide to the Moon," Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Chapter 4: Lunar
Surface Processes.
As many craters there are, especially on the moon, it would have to be a
constant massive amount of bombardment, and then suddenly stop, as the
bombardments are somewhat less at this time.
KRH: Yes, the Moon underwent a lot of impacts until about 3.8 billion years
ago. This was followed by volcanic eruptions that buried some of the
craters. The number of impacts have decreased over the past 3.8 billion
years. For the details, see:
Carr, M.H., et al., 1984, "The Geology of the Terrestrial Planets," NASA,
chapter 6: Moon.
And the earth would also have
as many, but it doesn't, so it cannot be by bombardments.
KRH: As others have pointed out, erosion, weathering and subduction have
largely destroyed Earth's crater record. However, the Precambrian shields
do contain the remnants or other evidence of numerous impact craters,
including Sudbury Ontario, west central Manitoba and around Hudson's Bay.
Richard A. Schumacher
>at which it cools, at the time of cooling and what changes are occurring at
>that time, as all those certain elements, materials and gases combine to
>craters forming. Have you ever looked at iron in it's raw state?
Sure, gas bubbling out of molten material can leave
craters, but not more than a few meters across. Impacts
will cause craters of all sizes.
>As many craters there are, especially on the moon, it would have to be a
>constant massive amount of bombardment, and then suddenly stop, as the
>bombardments are somewhat less at this time.
Not "suddenly stop", just taper off over time.
>And the earth would also have
>as many, but it doesn't, so it cannot be by bombardments.
Earth has dozens of impact craters. There are not so many and
not so obvious as on the Moon because the Earth has liquid
water and weather, which erode the craters. (If I'm going
too fast for you there are plenty of beginning geology
and astronomy texts which discuss these principles.)
Mark C.
DW>
DW> As many craters there are, especially on the moon, it would have to be a
DW> constant massive amount of bombardment, and then suddenly stop, as the
DW> bombardments are somewhat less at this time. And the earth would also have
DW> as many, but it doesn't, so it cannot be by bombardments.
Let's take a look at a couple of differences between the Earth and the
Moon.
1) The Earth has a atmosphere and the Moon does not. Most of the
meteors that fall to Earth get burned up in the atmosphere. Most (if
not all) of the meteors that fall to the Moon don't get burned up in a
atmosphere.
2) The Earth has a active weather system and the moon does not. This
means that erosion takes effect on the Earth and many craters get
wiped off of the face of the Earth.
3) The Earth has a active geological crust and the moon does not.
The crust of the Earth gets recycled through plate tectonics.
4) The majority of the Earth is covered in water thus any other meteor
hits that don't get burned up in the atmosphere are likely to hit
water and not land.
--
Mark C.
"My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a
happy, mentally healthy child is: Keep him or
her as far away from a church as you can." - FZ
Ty Shrake
Dore Williamson wrote:
>
> It all depends on the gases, elements and materials are present and the rate
> at which it cools, at the time of cooling and what changes are occurring at
> that time, as all those certain elements, materials and gases combine to
> form a new material, or element.
Once again you have shown your ignorance. Elements are formed by a
variety of processes, but your extremely vague description of a
"process" isn't one of them. Most elements are formed under conditions
of extreme heat and pressure and most of them formed inside of stars.
The cooling of the moon did not create new elements or craters.
Many materials cool with concave round
> craters forming. Have you ever looked at iron in it's raw state?
Yes, and it often displays a peculiar 'bubbly' nature very similar to
craters. But it doesn't explain the exisitence of craters dozens or
even hundreds of miles in diameter. Further, craters display a
distinctive ray pattern produced by ejecta, which is a feature
completely absent in molten iron. Lastly, craters and their formation
are a well understood process and their formation has been duplicated
and studied in laboratories many times. They are the result of high
speed impacts, plain and simple.
>
> As many craters there are, especially on the moon, it would have to be a
> constant massive amount of bombardment, and then suddenly stop,
There was nothing sudden about it. It was a gradual decrease. What
makes you think it was 'sudden'?
as the
> bombardments are somewhat less at this time. And the earth would also have
> as many, but it doesn't, so it cannot be by bombardments.
I'm stunned this has to be explained to you, Dore.
The earth has an atmosphere. The moon, except for a very diffuse layer
of sodium surrounding it, doesn't. OUR atmosphere creates what we call
"weather" (ring a bell?) Weather, along with lots of water, causes
EROSION and that it why most craters on the surface of the earth are no
longer visible. They have been eroded away. The moon doesn't have
weather, Dore, so the craters are still easy to see. Is this too
complicated for you?
You need to take a class in basic astronomy. You have no idea what
you're talking about. I suggest you start with a basic book, like
"Discovering the Universe", by William J. Kaufmann. (W. H. Freeman and
Company, New York).
I have given you a reference from which to learn but I have no doubt
you will instead choose to remain in the dark. For someone who claims
to be God you're not very knowledgeable about your own universe...
Your friend and mine,
...Ty
>
bigd...@my-dejanews.com
>
> ha ha ha...
>
> given by God as "waters", not soil, not land, not gold,
> not etc... but "waters".
>
> in sun spots on the sun, God was easily right in saying
> "waters" since science ADMITS that the original form
> of most all matter was hydrogen and/or other lighter
> elements.
ROFTLMAO!!!!
Water is hyrdrogen and Oxygen. What? you mean God couldn't have taught the
Hebrews a new word for hydrogen? When will you stop making a false idol out of
Genesis?
The heavier elements showed up after fusion
> started in stars.
>
> God even had this right in that he said "separated
> the light from the darkness" >>> BEFORE <<< he said
> the lands formed. This is right as well since fusion
> making heavier elements had to have occurred BEFORE
> the lands could appear... no heavier elements forming,
> only "waters" or lighter elements would have been
> around... no land... Again God was right.
ROFTLMAO!!!!
>
> And again, God was right in saying "waters" for the
> initial form of the earth and heavens. Science agrees
> that only lighter elements were around, the earth's
> intial matter had to be lighter elements.
ROFTLMAO!!! Amazing these fundies who claim the bible must be interpreted
literally, do not interpret it literally when it suits them... ROFTLMAO!!!
STuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
bigd...@my-dejanews.com
"Dore Williamson" <hsp...@epix.net> wrote:
> It all depends on the gases, elements and materials are present and the rate
> at which it cools, at the time of cooling and what changes are occurring at
> that time, as all those certain elements, materials and gases combine to
> craters forming. Have you ever looked at iron in it's raw state?
>
> bombardments are somewhat less at this time. And the earth would also have
> as many, but it doesn't, so it cannot be by bombardments.
Does plate tectonics and erosion mean anythingto you?
Stuart
>
> --
> http://members.tripod.com/~spirit_of_prophecy/index.html
> Dore
> Matt Silberstein wrote in message <370535a3...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> >In talk.origins I read this message from "Dore Williamson"
> ><hsp...@epix.net>:
> >
> >>Craters on planets and moons are caused by their cooling at the time of
> >>their creation.
> >
> >Interesting notion. Do you have any evidence or models to back this
> >up? How do you propose that circular craters form when a sphere
> >contracts?
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >
> >
> >Matt Silberstein
> >-------------------------------------------------------
> >The Killing, Paths of Glory, Spartacus, Lolita, Dr Strangelove,
> >2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon,
> >The Shinning, Full Metal Jacket, and, last of all, but I hope
> >not the least, Eyes Wide Shut. I will miss him.
> >
>
>
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
John P. Boatwright
> "John P. Boatwright" wrote:
> > It's assumed the original matter for the earth was around
> > after the big bang, though both science and the bible
> > claim only lighter elements as the initial form.
>
> The bible makes no credible claim as to what elements existed in the
> early universe. Your cliff hanging interpretation of Genesis lends no
> additional credibility to it.
The Genesis account says two things about earth at the
start:
* void and without form
* merely "waters"
The timing shows earth was both during the first 2 billion
years.
Science says basically the same thing when realizing
that the ancient Hebrews did NOT have a term for hydrogen,
but did have a word for water.
Notice, land DID NOT rise over the "waters" until
the 3rd "God day".
It's obvious God is right.
> > Get a clue Ty, the initial matter for earth was absolutely
> > given by God as "waters", not soil, not land, not gold,
> > not etc... but "waters".
> Your pathetic. The initial matter for the earth was provided by the
> deaths of early stars. This is how and why we have heavy elements.
That's what the separation of the "firmament" was
all about.
Take a look at the Hubble images, they match what
God described.
God even pointed out that the "waters" GATHERED
again AFTER the firmament separation.
It's too funny.
All this time, God was right. Thousands of years go
by and he just waits all the while KNOWING no matter
what, he would eventually be KNOWN to have been around
for BILLIONS OF YEARS and having MADE THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE.
That's MASSIVE in scope.
Yet atheists will write it off in seconds, their threshold
of doubt set so high they can't acknowledge even the most
obvious of statements.
> Hydrogen was not the only element around when the earth formed. The term
> "waters" is a term with no scientific context or importance because it
> is a poetic term used in a metaphorical context that has no scientific
> significance whatsoever. Your efforts to legitamize Genesis as a
> scientific description completely fail to take this into account.
The fact is, the Hebrews only had about 8000 words
to work with and the account was given about 3300
years ago.
You obviously won't find a term for hydrogen given
in the original Hebrew.
=======================================================
You will though find confirmation of water in sun spots
on the sun.
=======================================================
Obviously God was right in saying "waters".
But to convince you, Moses would have had to have
been a present day chemist/astronomer/physicist...
just to convince you, the common doubting atheist.
God was right to give the account 3300 years ago, it
leaves you the slack you need to reject him and feel
right about it.
There are several statements in the bible where God
specifically says he will let people walk away and
will not go after them. If that's what they really
want... they can have it, they will die in their sins.
> > The Hebrews had no term for hydrogen, and given water
> > in sun spots on the sun, God was easily right in saying
> > "waters" since science ADMITS that the original form
> > of most all matter was hydrogen and/or other lighter
> > elements. The heavier elements showed up after fusion
> > started in stars.
> Your statement "...and given water in sun spots on the sun, ..." is
> completely nonsensical.
It's a known fact and was just recently discovered
in the last couple of years.
Where have you been?
> > God even had this right in that he said "separated
> > the light from the darkness" >>> BEFORE <<< he said
> > the lands formed. This is right as well since fusion
> > making heavier elements had to have occurred BEFORE
> > the lands could appear... no heavier elements forming,
> > only "waters" or lighter elements would have been
> > around... no land... Again God was right.
> > And again, God was right in saying "waters" for the
> > initial form of the earth and heavens.
> Wrong. The earth formed well after heavy elements were present.
> Hydrogen and other light elements are not sufficient by themselves to
> create a planet like earth. In fact, if it weren't for the heavy
> elements earth as we know it wouldn't be here.
Duh!
That's what the re-gathering after the EXPLOSION or
separation of the "waters" and firmament was all about.
See the Hubble photos.
> > > Do you have a statistical analysis that shows this
> > > improbablity? Or is this another case of "If I
> > > can't understand it then it must not have happened."
> > Look Ty, the distances to the stars are measured in
> > LIGHT YEARS
> No shit, sherlock... (2.99 x 10e8 meters/second) x (3.1536 x 10e7
> sec/yr)= ~ 6 trillion miles.
> I've done the metric to english conversion for you because I know you
> have trouble with that sort of thing.
ha ha ha...
> > Do you have any idea how far away the nearest star is?
> As a matter of fact I do: The binary star system Alpha and Proxima
> Centuari are approximately 4.3 light years from your keyboard. Any
> other questions?
Where does Dairy Queen buy it's ice cream?
> > Do you realize that the probability for an impact from a
> > single peice of matter drops by the >>> CUBE <<< of the
> > distance?
> As a former physics major the answer to your question is: YES.
ha ha ha...
I bet you haven't even been to a Dairy Queen.
> > Well?
> Well how about you count the number of asteroids in the early solar
> system and see how probable an impact becomes.
Yes!
I said the EXPLOSION in our solar system made the bits and
peices... some regathered to make planets and moons, the
rest are smaller space junk orbiting the sun. Some of the
original stuff had to have come crashing back if it didn't
orbit.
It's obvious.
And that agrees with the majority of the impacts to the
moon occurring right after it formed (CNN recent article).
And you won't get that kind of agreement with matter from
outside the solar system and that's what I said in the
previous post.
So... glad you agree.
> > > > The moon is merely matter that was in about the same
> > > > orbit as the earth around the pre-sun's matter. It
> > > > regathered like the earth did just prior and now orbits
> > > > earth.
> > > OK, then take your thesis to the Harvard Astronomy Department and
> > > defend it. Make sure you show them all of your calculations and data,
> > > otherwise you won't have a very convincing argument.
> > ha ha ha...
> > Show a paper proving sizable EXPECTED impacts originating
> > from outside our solar system.
> Now I know you're an idiot. The impacts were from objects INSIDE the
> solar system. Some of those objects still remain... it's called the
> asteroid belt.
And that's what I've saying.
I do NOT believe the impacts have anything to do with
matter from outside our solar system.
I believe there was an initial >>> RING EXPLOSION <<<
of which there's a detailed a possible cause for it at:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/planets.htm
which calls a link from within that page discussing
it.
> > > You need to take a course in basic astronomy. A little
> > > basic physics would help too.
> > Why?
> Because you've proven conclusively in this thread that you have
> absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
You wish.
John P. Boatwright
> OK what is the source for your known fact?
> I think Any astronomy book will tell you that the Moon rotates oncew every
> 24 hours, it's nothing to do with it having an offset mass, that's the
> most stupid think I ever heard. You made it up didn't you?
The moon's offset center of mass... the moon always having
the same "side" aimed at earth... you not believing it
since a theist said it...
Heck Shooty, this is standard stuff.
You claiming you can't believe it is a bit much,
and I can't determine if you're serious or not.
But if you really need a reference, I suppose I
could post it.
Are you serious?
Shane D. Killian
>
> The moon's offset center of mass...
>
side facing towards Earth because of a tidal lock. The moon is not
perfectly spherical, and the earth's gravity pulls the side of the moon
with the greater attraction dur to being the "bulge"--since that is
*closer* to the Earth, it is attracted and stays there. *Not* because of
anything being "offset."
"The moon's center is offset from its center..." Hoo boy, that's a good
one!
> Heck Shooty, this is standard stuff.
>
And, as always, you get it pathetically wrong.
Wade Hines
> "John P. Boatwright" wrote:
> > The moon's offset center of mass...
> Offset from *what*? The center of mass *is* the center! It has the same
> side facing towards Earth because of a tidal lock. The moon is not
> perfectly spherical, and the earth's gravity pulls the side of the moon
> with the greater attraction dur to being the "bulge"--since that is
> *closer* to the Earth, it is attracted and stays there. *Not* because of
> anything being "offset."
> "The moon's center is offset from its center..." Hoo boy, that's a good
> one!
> > Heck Shooty, this is standard stuff.
> And, as always, you get it pathetically wrong.
It seems to me that you are pathetically inept at communication.
The center of the moon to most peoples thinking is the best approximation
of a point such that plains passing through that point cut the moon into
equal volumes. You can probably figure out how to find such a point on a
sphere. Such a sphere can have an offset center of mass.
There really are stupid things out there for you to make fun of but
you are only inventing one in that last post.
Shane D. Killian
>
> It seems to me that you are pathetically inept at communication.
>
> The center of the moon to most peoples thinking is the best
> approximation of a point such that plains passing through that point cut
> the moon into equal volumes. You can probably figure out how to find
> such a point on a sphere. Such a sphere can have an offset center of
> mass.
>
not consistent. That's not what Boatwright was talking about. He was
saying that if you divide the moon in half as you suggest, and one half
is more dense than the other, it is the MORE DENSE half that would be
locked with the Earth, when in reality it's the exact opposite.
John P. Boatwright
> "Shane D. Killian" wrote:
> > "John P. Boatwright" wrote:
> > > The moon's offset center of mass...
> > Offset from *what*? The center of mass *is* the center! It has the same
> > side facing towards Earth because of a tidal lock. The moon is not
> > perfectly spherical, and the earth's gravity pulls the side of the moon
> > with the greater attraction dur to being the "bulge"--since that is
> > *closer* to the Earth, it is attracted and stays there. *Not* because of
> > anything being "offset."
> > "The moon's center is offset from its center..." Hoo boy, that's a good
> > one!
> > > Heck Shooty, this is standard stuff.
> > And, as always, you get it pathetically wrong.
> It seems to me that you are pathetically inept at communication.
I see you've met Shaney boy.
> The center of the moon to most peoples thinking is the best approximation
> of a point such that plains passing through that point cut the moon into
> equal volumes. You can probably figure out how to find such a point on a
> sphere. Such a sphere can have an offset center of mass.
Exactly.
> There really are stupid things out there for you to make fun of but
> you are only inventing one in that last post.
Sure looks that way.
John P. Boatwright
> Wade Hines wrote:
> > It seems to me that you are pathetically inept at communication.
> > The center of the moon to most peoples thinking is the best
> > approximation of a point such that plains passing through that point cut
> > the moon into equal volumes. You can probably figure out how to find
> > such a point on a sphere. Such a sphere can have an offset center of
> > mass.
> Assuming it is a perfect sphere, this is only possible if the density is
> not consistent.
The moon's density DOES vary and as such, I said the
moon's center of mass is offset from the center and
that that's why the moon only shows one "side" to the
earth.
What part don't you understand?
> That's not what Boatwright was talking about.
Here's the EXACT quote:
==================================================
It also explains why the moon's center of mass
is offset towards the earth, hence the moon always
showing the same "side" to earth.
==================================================
> He was saying that if you divide the moon in half
> as you suggest, and one half is more dense than the
> other, it is the MORE DENSE half that would be
> locked with the Earth, when in reality it's the exact opposite.
You lose.
From http://www.hawastsoc.org/solar/eng/moon.htm:
====================================================
This concentration may be explained by the fact that
the Moon's center of mass is offset from its geometric
center by about 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) in the
direction of Earth
====================================================
And of course, this is just more confirmation that
God was right in Genesis.
The matter RE-GATHERING would tend to have the heavier
matter towards the earth as the moon formed.
Simple stuff.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described planet formation BEFORE science did.
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/planets.htm
Wade Hines
> Shaney boy wrote:
> > Wade Hines wrote:
> > > It seems to me that you are pathetically inept at communication.
> > > The center of the moon to most peoples thinking is the best
> > > approximation of a point such that plains passing through that point cut
planes
> You lose.
> From http://www.hawastsoc.org/solar/eng/moon.htm:
You were doing well until that point.
Your "interpretation" is so like to Shane's interpretation of
your comments that I see immediately why you two would have
a special relationship.
> The matter RE-GATHERING would tend to have the heavier
> matter towards the earth as the moon formed.
> Simple stuff.
If the moon persisted in orbit with the earth with an
unstable face presented you would have something but
as the current situation only requires gravity to exist
as it does, your assertion is patently meaningless.
ronkc7tke
"John P. Boatwright" wrote:
> Shooty wrote:
>
> > OK what is the source for your known fact?
>
> > I think Any astronomy book will tell you that the Moon rotates oncew every
> > 24 hours, it's nothing to do with it having an offset mass, that's the
> > most stupid think I ever heard. You made it up didn't you?
>
> The moon's offset center of mass... the moon always having
> the same "side" aimed at earth... you not believing it
> since a theist said it...
>
> Heck Shooty, this is standard stuff.
>
> You claiming you can't believe it is a bit much,
> and I can't determine if you're serious or not.
> But if you really need a reference, I suppose I
> could post it.
>
> Are you serious?
>
> God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
>
> Proof God described planet formation BEFORE science did:
> http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/planets.htm
John P. Boatwright
> "John P. Boatwright" wrote:
> > From http://www.hawastsoc.org/solar/eng/moon.htm:
> > ====================================================
> > This concentration may be explained by the fact that
> > the Moon's center of mass is offset from its geometric
> > center by about 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) in the
> > direction of Earth
> > ====================================================
> > And of course, this is just more confirmation that
> > God was right in Genesis.
> You were doing well until that point.
Ya, I should have saved the answer for Shooty... if
he slammed a few more times...
Oh well.
> Your "interpretation" is so like to Shane's interpretation of
> your comments that I see immediately why you two would have
> a special relationship.
Shaney boy claims to be Christian yet can't stand
the idea that God was right in Genesis.
Go figure.
> > The matter RE-GATHERING would tend to have the heavier
> > matter towards the earth as the moon formed.
> > Simple stuff.
> If the moon persisted in orbit with the earth with an
> unstable face presented you would have something but
> as the current situation only requires gravity to exist
> as it does, your assertion is patently meaningless.
Nah, the offset center of mass shows the moon's matter
was
==============
RE-GATHERING
==============
Again, it's simple stuff AND it agrees with God's statements
in Genesis.
(since he made the moon anyway, why shouldn't it agree?)
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described planet formation BEFORE science did.
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/planets.htm
Ken Cox
> sa...@teleport.com (Boatwright) wrote:
> > It also explains why the moon's center of mass
> > is offset towards the earth, hence the moon always
> > showing the same "side" to earth.
> anywhere.
Boatwright is both right and wrong. He's right in that the mass
distribution of the moon is not homogeneous; the center of mass
is not at the center of volume. He is also right in that this
offset is aligned with the Earth-Moon axis, as you might expect
given the way tidal effects work (for a fictional example, take
the behavior of the spaceship in "Neutron Star").
However, he's wrong in his description of how the inhomogeneity
formed -- he implies it's from the Earth tugging at the material
of the Moon and pulling the denser core toward the Earth. This
is not how masses in orbit behave, and furthermore the Moon had
solidified and fixed this mass distribution some considerable
time before it entered tidal lock. The lock was because of the
mass distribution, not the other way around.
IIRC, he's also wrong in a second way -- the "extra" mass is
on the side *away* from the Earth. This is easy to explain
by standard science -- the tidal lock on the inhomogeneity
works the same way -- but is again inconsistent with his own
explanation of how it arose.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> I thought this was a Bible Prophecy Newsgroup....
Blame Boatwright. He's the one who thinks every Hubble picture
and DNA sequence is predicted in the Bible. Think of him as a
Pyramidologist for the Bible -- mining his single source for
arbitrary patterns. Actually, the "Bible Codes" stuff might be
a better match.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Jim Phillips
<snip>
> However, he's wrong in his description of how the inhomogeneity
> formed -- he implies it's from the Earth tugging at the material
> of the Moon and pulling the denser core toward the Earth. This
> is not how masses in orbit behave, and furthermore the Moon had
> solidified and fixed this mass distribution some considerable
> time before it entered tidal lock.
Has anyone determined when the Moon entered tidal lock with
the Earth? Your statement above piqued my curiosity.
--
Jim Phillips, jphi...@bcpl.net, Skep-ti-cult member, unofficial Cahooter,
antiracist, race traitor, jewish lackey
If Jesus *really* loves me, he'll forgive me for not worshiping him.
Ken Cox
> Has anyone determined when the Moon entered tidal lock with
> the Earth? Your statement above piqued my curiosity.
I vaguely recall seeing an estimate that the tidal lock has been
in place for over two billion years. The problem, now that you
mention it, is that this wasn't qualified as an upper bound -- so
the lock may actually have been in place longer. I'll try the
library and see if I can come up with anything better.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ty Shrake
I have no desire to waste anymore time with a complete idiot. Until you
educate yourself you'll be a blathering moron your whole life.
Your friend and mine,
...Ty
Boikat
Ty Shrake <tsh...@intrex.net> wrote in article
<37096031...@intrex.net>...
>
>
> I have no desire to waste anymore time with a complete idiot. Until you
> educate yourself you'll be a blathering moron your whole life.
>
> Your friend and mine,
>
> ...Ty
Did you notice that a lot of creationists seem to think that "willful
ignorance" appears to have the same meaning as saying, or implying, that
they "have strong Faith"?
Boikat
John P. Boatwright
> IIRC, he's also wrong in a second way -- the "extra" mass is
> on the side *away* from the Earth. This is easy to explain
> by standard science -- the tidal lock on the inhomogeneity
> works the same way -- but is again inconsistent with his own
> explanation of how it arose.
Ken you're just too slow today...
From http://www.hawastsoc.org/solar/eng/moon.htm:
====================================================
This concentration may be explained by the fact that
the Moon's center of mass is offset from its geometric
center by about 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) in the
direction of Earth
====================================================
Like I said, the center of mass is >>> TOWARDS <<< the earth.
Bell labs eh?
Huh...
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
====================================================
Proof God ABSOLUTELY predicted Jesus as shown on the
Shroud of Turin in the OLD TESTAMENT:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/zec11.htm
====================================================
Amazing.
John P. Boatwright
> On 5 Apr 1999, Ken Cox wrote:
> > However, he's wrong in his description of how the inhomogeneity
> > formed -- he implies it's from the Earth tugging at the material
> > of the Moon and pulling the denser core toward the Earth. This
> > is not how masses in orbit behave, and furthermore the Moon had
> > solidified and fixed this mass distribution some considerable
> > time before it entered tidal lock.
> Has anyone determined when the Moon entered tidal lock with
> the Earth? Your statement above piqued my curiosity.
> --
> Jim Phillips, jphi...@bcpl.net, Skep-ti-cult member, unofficial Cahooter,
> antiracist, race traitor, jewish lackey
> If Jesus *really* loves me, he'll forgive me for not worshiping him.
Jesus forgives those who accept his sacrifice and
repent of their sins.
As for Kenny being >>> WRONG <<<:
From http://www.hawastsoc.org/solar/eng/moon.htm:
====================================================
This concentration may be explained by the fact that
the Moon's center of mass is offset from its geometric
center by about 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) in the
direction of Earth
====================================================
Poor Kenny.
Anyways, God was right in saying the earth's matter
RE-GATHERED... it matches the ring explosions seen
by Hubble, the ring dust formations, etc... all of
it matching the separation of the "firmament" and
"waters" as described in Genesis.
The offset center of mass on the moon confirms the
RE-GATHERING.
As usual, God was right (and had it right over 3300
years ago), and science is still catching up.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described planet formation BEFORE science did.
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/planets.htm
John P. Boatwright
> I have no desire to waste anymore time with a complete idiot. Until you
> educate yourself you'll be a blathering moron your whole life.
And you're the one that said the below line:
=========================================================
> > > Your statement "...and given water in sun spots on
> > > the sun, ..." is completely nonsensical.
==========================================================
It's kinda too bad that CNN reported it, I guess they were
a roll 'er somethin, making up all kinds of strange science
"nonsense" (facts).
ha ha ha...
"Ya bob, IR signature of water in sun spots... but let's
not tell Ty... he's gets real upset when discussing
science facts, probably have another food fight..."
Let's see, in the last week:
* Xalan (an atheist) said X-ray's couldn't be focused
and X-ray telescopes weren't used to VIEW X-rays.
Little did Xalan (a self proclaimed X-ray specialist)
know, Chandra (another of MANY X-ray telescopes) is
going up this summer, grazing incidence mirrors used
to focus the X-rays, and of course, NASA's running
the show again.
* Kenny said the moon's center of mass is offset away
from earth, even said it's on IIRC...
I guess Kenny didn't see the reference to the
moon's center of mass being TOWARDS the earth by
1.2 miles and that it's been proposed to have been
caused by magma flows on the near side, the thicker
crust on the far side stopping such flows, hence
the moon being denser on the near side.
Of course Shaney boy started doubting this first so
Ken tagging along isn't such a big deal... 'cept
Shaney boy does claim to be an artist and Ken claims
to do research for Bell...
* So now Ty claims the IR signature of water isn't in
sun spots on the sun, and saying such would be
nonsense... I suppose CNN reporting it last year won't
help matters any.
And all this is shear diversion from God being
RIGHT ALL ALONG in Genesis in the bible (the
original Hebrew matches quite well, english
translation assumptions from HUNDREDS of years
ago being off, is to be expected.).
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
====================================================
Proof God ABSOLUTELY predicted Jesus as shown on the
Shroud of Turin in the >>> OLD TESTAMENT <<<:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/zec11.htm
====================================================
And of course:
Ken Cox
> Ken Cox wrote:
> > IIRC, he's also wrong in a second way
Well, I did qualify it with an "IIRC". You're still wrong about
the *cause* of the mass asymmetry, you know.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
overk...@my-dejanews.com
sa...@teleport.com wrote:
> Shooty wrote:
>
> > OK what is the source for your known fact?
>
> > I think Any astronomy book will tell you that the Moon rotates oncew every
> > 24 hours, it's nothing to do with it having an offset mass, that's the
> > most stupid think I ever heard. You made it up didn't you?
>
> The moon's offset center of mass... the moon always having
> the same "side" aimed at earth... you not believing it
> since a theist said it...
>
> Heck Shooty, this is standard stuff.
>
> You claiming you can't believe it is a bit much,
> and I can't determine if you're serious or not.
> But if you really need a reference, I suppose I
> could post it.
>
> Are you serious?
Yes, I'd really love to see this reference, since I am a stdent of both
astronomy, and Earth & Planetary sciences at ASU, and our prof.'s teach us
that the moon does indeed rotate on it's axis.
Let me ask you, does it seem logical to YOU, that a molten body forming in
ZERO gravity will have an off center center of gravity? When liquid, (of any
sort, not just molten rock), is released in zero gravity, it forms a perfect
sphere. You may have noticed this in footage from space, or from the shape of
all nine planets, their moons, and the sun.
>
> God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
>
> Proof God described planet formation BEFORE science did:
> http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/planets.htm
>
>
Now, I still don't understand what on Earth that has to do with the formation
of planets in ANY star system.
Regards,
Overkill
aker2<at>hotmail<dot>com a.a #1336
Stix
>====================================================
>Proof God ABSOLUTELY predicted Jesus as shown on the
>Shroud of Turin in the OLD TESTAMENT:
>http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/zec11.htm
>====================================================
ABSOLUTELY, eh?
What's this then:
"Note: The above information was written by John P. Boatwright and is
freely given. The information is simply my opinion based on how I
perceive the content discussed."
Huh? It's only *your* (which speaks for itself) OPINION??
B-but Johnny, you just used the words 'proof' and 'absolutely'!
So what is it? Absolute proof, or merely your opinion?
(anyway, too bad for Johnny's Shroud fetish that the fabled shroud has
already been *conclusively* dated (with 95% confidence) to CE
1260-1390 -- Johnny's contrary "plasticized fungus!!" squeals
certainly not withstanding)
"Anyone reading such should use their own judgement as to
whether or not the information has any value to them."
Heh -- of course, so far EVERYONE who's read your idiotic brain
seepings has used their judgement to conclude that the crap you
sputter has no value whatsoever -- except perhaps for novelty value.
"You may copy portions of the above opinions as long as a
reference to this page is included and no text within said portion is
altered."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
In your (wet) dreams, hamster-boy!
"If copied to another medium . . ." <snip>
Oh shut up.
>Amazing.
The depths of your delusions are, yes.
ha ha ha...
Stix.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
God made fuck all, Jesus whined on the stick.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
STD DIALUP
: Earth has dozens of impact craters. There are not so many and
: not so obvious as on the Moon because the Earth has liquid
: water and weather, which erode the craters. (If I'm going
: too fast for you there are plenty of beginning geology
: and astronomy texts which discuss these principles.)
A typical xian's brain runs at half of the speed of an 8088 processor. You
need to insert about 500 wait states between words.
John P. Boatwright
> John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > Ken Cox wrote:
> > > IIRC, he's also wrong in a second way
> > Like I said, the center of mass is >>> TOWARDS <<< the earth.
> Well, I did qualify it with an "IIRC". You're still wrong about
> the *cause* of the mass asymmetry, you know.
Ken, I could have answered Shaney's post and then
slammed him a bit, maybe a bunch, but he never seems
to understand and that becomes boring, so I'll
answer you instead.
Shaney's big "gotcha" is that matter accelerates at
the same speed in a vacuum, when referencing earth
as the gravity source. Therefore he insists
that the mass density distribution would be the
same for both the earth and the moon, if the matter
was RE-GATHERING.
Nope.
Look around Ken, the earth's mass is NOT a vacuum
and neither is the moon. See all the stuff around
you, the air, the water, the etc... The matter
RE-GATHERING is pulled in by gravity and during
that time, the mass of dust, water, gases, etc...
Dust, gases, liquids, RE-GATHERING is much like:
===============================================
muddy water settling the heaviest stuff soonest,
the stuff furthest from the earth would have
the smaller densities collecting, the moon
should in fact have the lower density.
===============================================
Or see the heaviest stuff in twisters stay low to
the ground... swirling dust, gases, liquids, solids,
etc...
Same thing, different time scale, different physical
size.
Basically, the earth and moon RE-GATHERING is assumed
to be somewhat mixed, not a pure vacuum, you can't
apply the "pure vacuum" statement when the mass was
originally dispersed in that manner.
Obviously God was right in saying the "waters"
RE-GATHERED to the earth, the land later rising
above the waters, etc...
Typical.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described planet formation BEFORE science did.
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/planets.htm
Denis Loubet
<7eeas6$upf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
As far as I know, none of the planets are a perfect sphere. Your model
works fine for tiny spheres of liquid, but when the spheres get to the size
of moons, you have the situation where the mass closest to the planet is
experiencing a greater pull of gravity from the planet than the mass on the
far side. This imbalance severely affects the shape of the moon.
As for the planets, the rotation of a planet precludes the formation of a
perfect sphere. The mass at the equator bulges outward due to the spin. For
a small, hard, planet like the earth, this deformation is small, and not
visible in a photograph. Not so with Jupiter, you can see the flattened
sphere effect in just about every photo of the planet I've seen.
One more thing. The moon rotates *about* once a month, not once a day.
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
John P. Boatwright
> sa...@teleport.com wrote:
> > Shooty wrote:
> > > OK what is the source for your known fact?
> > > I think Any astronomy book will tell you that the Moon rotates oncew every
> > > 24 hours, it's nothing to do with it having an offset mass, that's the
> > > most stupid think I ever heard. You made it up didn't you?
> > The moon's offset center of mass... the moon always having
> > the same "side" aimed at earth... you not believing it
> > since a theist said it...
> > Heck Shooty, this is standard stuff.
> > You claiming you can't believe it is a bit much,
> > and I can't determine if you're serious or not.
> > But if you really need a reference, I suppose I
> > could post it.
> > Are you serious?
> Yes, I'd really love to see this reference, since I am a stdent of both
> astronomy, and Earth & Planetary sciences at ASU, and our prof.'s teach us
> that the moon does indeed rotate on it's axis.
From http://www.hawastsoc.org/solar/eng/moon.htm:
====================================================
This concentration may be explained by the fact that
the Moon's center of mass is offset from its geometric
center by about 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) in the
direction of Earth
====================================================
The moon always has the same "side" to earth, yet
rotates around earth. The center of mass being offset
such as it is ensures this.
I suppose you want the reference for the "one side
to earth"... right?
> Let me ask you, does it seem logical to YOU, that a molten
> body forming in ZERO gravity will have an off center
> center of gravity?
Ya.
> When liquid, (of any sort, not just molten rock), is
> released in zero gravity, it forms a perfect sphere.
You're ignoring the earth's mass being nearby and
the gravitational pull causing deformation to the
density profile.
> You may have noticed this in footage from space, or
> from the shape of all nine planets, their moons, and the sun.
I believe another guy answered this one in the
same general reply.
> > God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
> >
> > Proof God described planet formation BEFORE science did:
> > http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/planets.htm
> Now, I still don't understand what on Earth that has to do
> with the formation of planets in ANY star system.
Earth was just a portion of the initial "waters" that
were separated. The ring explosions seen by Hubble
tend to match such a description as seen in the original
masoretic Hebrew Genesis text.
The Genesis account matches, God was right, so God
made his creation, hence God owns it... just like
he said.
John P. Boatwright
> John P. Boatwright posted the following to alt.atheism:
> >====================================================
> >Proof God ABSOLUTELY predicted Jesus as shown on the
> >Shroud of Turin in the OLD TESTAMENT:
> >http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/zec11.htm
> >====================================================
> B-but Johnny, you just used the words 'proof' and 'absolutely'!
Of course.
The entire verse set for Zec 11 is where God decides
he wants to void the covenant, makes an offer where
he can be paid to end it, they pay him, he then ends
the covenant.
And to do so, he declares he'll use two approaches where
HE is shepherding them.
The FIRST approach God calls up, HE will BREAK from
the "delightful" sheparding which is well known to
them, it's where the ARM OF GOD saved the Hebrews out
of Egypt. Basically, with no more "delightful"
shepherding, there'd be no more MIGHT and POWER.
This because the RICH were merely getting richer and
the poor were being killed off. So God in order to
end the covenant begins by first shutting down MIGHT
and POWER.
From there, God continues with an OFFENSIVE method
of shepherding, and if they think it's of more value
than the covenant... they'd simply have to pay God
some wages (30 peices of silver) and the covenant
would end.
What a deal.
Anyway, they paid, Jesus was considered by the Jews
to be OFFENSIVE and was taken and killed for
basically 30 peices of silver.
God then says to toss the money to the potter in the temple
and he accepted the "wages" paid, the covenant now void.
Further, the Zec 11 verse set continues to DETAIL how
to recognize the shepherd... he'd appear foolish,
wouldn't heal the shattered, wouldn't seek out the
scattered, etc... and finally, God blatantly mentions
the image of the shepherd with a confused arm and
right side of the face being failed. Both the arm
and face being hit with a tool or staff. The New
Testament agrees, Jesus was beaten, and hit with a
staff in the face. The Shroud agrees with the Old
Testament account as well, the mark from being hit
in the face on the right side easily seen. The
shroud also displays the confused arm as visually
too long.
Yet for some odd reason the typical bible translations
that you'd expect to point out the shroud match
if they were forging a shroud, didn't see the match
to Zec 11:17.
The flow of the verse set leads right to it, but
for some reason, the translators didn't see it,
Jesus and shroud easily match the original Hebrew
account of Zec 11.
Don't see what's going on?
The shroud has only now been viewable in the
negative, easily able to make out all the facial
details, the physical attributes, the golden
or glistening pipes on either side of Jesus,
the head and hair white like wool, the ARM OF GOD
made BARE to the nations of the world, etc...
If they were intentionally forging the shroud, they
should have previously translated the Zec 11:17 verse
to align with what the shroud displays.
Why didn't they?
Here's the match to the Shroud from the original
Hebrew:
Zec 11:17 - Alas! The image of the shepherd that leaves behind
the flock, the tools shall be upon his arm and
upon the right side of his face! His arm shall
be utterly confounded, his right side of the face,
utterly failed.
This absolutely aligns with what you see on the shroud
and agrees with the previous verses in Zec 11 where
Jesus is being predicted by God as a shepard that would
be OFFENSIVE to them and this would allow God be PAID to
void the covenant.
Simple stuff.
And God accurately predicted it >>> 520 years BEFORE <<<
Jesus showed up.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
====================================================
John P. Boatwright
> "John P. Boatwright" wrote:
> > There is an INHERENT sorting of heavier matter to where
> > the majority of matter is going... to the earth.
> What is the mechanism behind this sorting? Write a paper
> on it and win the Nobel prize.
How can somebody win a Nobel prize for repeating
what God said in Genesis?
As for the sorting of heavier matter, it's clearly
seen all time here on earth.
The preliminary earth and moon matter was NOT
in a "pure vacuum", there were gases, dust, liquids,
solids, etc... all trying to settle out.
See muddy water for an equivalent, the heaviest matter
settles in first, the lighter matter remains out away
swirling around longer. Eventually for the earth/moon
system, the moon would form from the lighter material
that hadn't yet settled in.
God even pointed this out by saying the moon formed
AFTER, obviously the lighter materials were still
swirling around and those made up the moon while also
covering over the the earth's upper crust with similar
matter.
It's extremely simple stuff, obviously God
was right (again).
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described planet formation BEFORE science did.
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/planets.htm
Ken Cox
> Shaney's big "gotcha" is that matter accelerates at
> the same speed in a vacuum, when referencing earth
> Look around Ken, the earth's mass is NOT a vacuum
> and neither is the moon. See all the stuff around
> you, the air, the water, the etc...
And to think I didn't believe the stories about you from the
alt.atheism group....
Go UP about a thousand miles and look around you. You will
notice that you are in a vacuum. The moon is even farther
than that.
Besides, though Shaney may have phrased it badly, the important
issue is not the behavior of matter in a vacuum but of matter
in *free fall*. The coalescing moon was in free-fall, so there
was no net gravitational force from the Earth to preferentially
pull on certain parts.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Nathan Chasteen
Hrmm.. I beg to differ. There was a recent television program, by one of
the big 3 stations, that said that after further research and study, that
they DO believe that teh shroud is from around the time of Jesus. And this
was recently aired.
-Nate
Stix wrote in message
John P. Boatwright
> Hrmm.. I beg to differ. There was a recent television
> program, by one of the big 3 stations, that said that
> after further research and study, that they DO believe
> that teh shroud is from around the time of Jesus. And
> this was recently aired.
Atheists don't like to hear this so you better
post it a few more times.
> Stix wrote in message
Ya right.
Huh, looks like people are finally figuring it out.
Yet God already told people about the shroud LONG
ago, way before Jesus showed up, he described
Jesus, why he'd show up, and how he'd be recognized
on the shroud:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/zec11.htm
That's right, it's in the OLD TESTAMENT.
Just one of SEVERAL times God mentioned Jesus
in the OLD TESTAMENT >>> HUNDREDS OF YEARS <<< BEFORE
Jesus showed up.
Jeffrey L. Adam
>Hrmm.. I beg to differ. There was a recent television program, by one of
>the big 3 stations, that said that after further research and study, that
>they DO believe that teh shroud is from around the time of Jesus. And this
>was recently aired.
Oh, it came from one of the three *big* stations, huh? Holy bullshit,
Batman, it must be true! Oh fer sure, dude, the mainstream media would
never fucking tell a lie!
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Lemme guess, another brainwashed christer, are you?
>-Nate
Dipshit.
John P. Boatwright
> John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > Shaney's big "gotcha" is that matter accelerates at
> > the same speed in a vacuum, when referencing earth
> > as the gravity source. [snip]
> > Look around Ken, the earth's mass is NOT a vacuum
> > and neither is the moon. See all the stuff around
> > you, the air, the water, the etc...
> And to think I didn't believe the stories about you from the
> alt.atheism group....
Look at twisters Kenny.
Look at muddy water settling.
That matter RE-GATHERING could easily show the same
process.
> Go UP about a thousand miles and look around you. You will
> notice that you are in a vacuum. The moon is even farther
> than that.
It is now, ya.
But not back while forming the moon.
> Besides, though Shaney may have phrased it badly, the important
> issue is not the behavior of matter in a vacuum but of matter
> in *free fall*. The coalescing moon was in free-fall, so there
> was no net gravitational force from the Earth to preferentially
> pull on certain parts.
There is one more attribute confirming God being right
in saying he re-gathered the "waters":
=====================================================
The asteroid "eros" has shown similar density to that
of earth's and the moon's crust.
-- recent CNN article
=====================================================
ha ha ha...
That's conclusive proof of re-gathering since the same
desity of matter was coating the moon and earth from
LIGHTER density matter out further in space.
Overall, the moon built up more percentage wise from
that RE-GATHERING of lighter density matter shot out
further.
Like I said, you have NO guarantee what the form
of the re-gathering matter looked like. Just as
in a twister/tornado, you get what ever flys by.
If it's a dense cloud of dust and lighter matter
or large chunks of asteroids... that's what shows
up...
.... and the moon formed from it.
Remember, God said he separated the waters below
from the waters above, the firmament inbetween.
That EXPLOSION of the pre-sun (see the ring shaped
explosions of stars near the surface in Hubble photos
and the ring shaped dust clouds near planet forming
stars) had to have shot out lighter density matter
near the upper surface and heavier density matter
where the FISSION ring shapped explosion occurred.
That lighter density matter is seen in asteroids
way out there in the solar system... long since
shot out further.
God saying he RE-GATHERED the "waters" and land
later rising above the "waters" all fits with
what is currently measured as in:
The same density at the surface for the
* earth
* moon
* asteroids
All lighter than the mean density seen for
earth. All expected when considering a "firmament"
or heavier matter building up in a ring UNDER
the surface of the pre-sun, that matter undergoing
a FISSION explosion, lighter elements shot out
furthest, heavier elements making planets, etc...
But get this, when you ignore God's answer, you're
left with >>> NOTHING <<< to form planets, and
of course >>> NOTHING <<< to form the moon.
A massive impact formed the moon?
Nope:
=================================================
"The major problem with the (impact) theory is
that it would seem to require that the earth
melted throughout, following the impact, whereas
the earth's geochemistry does not indicate such
a radical melting."
-- Encarta Encyclopedia
=================================================
So much for the "impact theory".
Looks like God has the right answer.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described planet formation BEFORE science did:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/planets.htm
Shane D. Killian
>
> Shaney boy wrote:
>
> > Assuming it is a perfect sphere, this is only possible if the density
> > is not consistent.
>
> The moon's density DOES vary and as such,
>
Never said it didn't.
> The matter RE-GATHERING would tend to have the heavier
> matter towards the earth as the moon formed.
>
See? Completely, pathetically wrong. ALL OBJECTS FALL AT THE SAME RATE
REGARDLESS OF WEIGHT. How many times must we have to say it?
> Simple stuff.
>
Yeah. Too bad you don't understand a bit of it.
--
Shane D. Killian -- sha...@vnet.net -- http://users.vnet.net/shanek
"uuunnn k mmmmmmk hhhhhhhh khbbbbbbbbbbbh
gnhjjjjjjjjjjj rrrrrrrrrddddfc gvb uyyyyyyyhubbbbbbb"
--Sinclair Mitchell Killian, born 1/29/98
Shane D. Killian
>
> I thought this was a Bible Prophecy Newsgroup....
>
Another victim of Boaty's relentless crossposting, it seems...I'd trim
the followups, but it does no good. He puts 'em right back in.
Shane D. Killian
>
> When liquid, (of any sort, not just molten rock), is released in zero
> from space, or from the shape of all nine planets, their moons, and the
> sun.
>
they're spheres, and not pyramids or cubes!
(You laugh, but D. James Kennedy actually *says* this!)
> Now, I still don't understand what on Earth that has to do with the
> formation of planets in ANY star system.
>
Nothing, and everything to do with Boaty propping up his weak faith.
Shane D. Killian
>
> From http://www.hawastsoc.org/solar/eng/moon.htm:
>
> ====================================================
> This concentration may be explained by the fact that
> the Moon's center of mass is offset from its geometric
> center by about 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) in the
> direction of Earth
> ====================================================
>
"The dark, relatively lightly cratered maria cover about 16% of the
lunar surface and is concentrated on the nearside of the Moon, mostly
within impact basins. This concentration may be explained by the fact
that the Moon's center of mass is offset from its geometric center by
about 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) in the direction of Earth, probably
because the crust is thicker on the farside."
Hmmm...nope! Doesn't say what Boaty wants it to!
Shane D. Killian
>
> Shaney's big "gotcha" is that matter accelerates at
> the same speed in a vacuum, when referencing earth
> that the mass density distribution would be the
> same for both the earth and the moon, if the matter
> was RE-GATHERING.
>
density would be just the same.
Shane D. Killian
>
> As far as I know, none of the planets are a perfect sphere. Your model
> works fine for tiny spheres of liquid, but when the spheres get to the
> size of moons, you have the situation where the mass closest to the
> planet is experiencing a greater pull of gravity from the planet than
> the mass on the far side. This imbalance severely affects the shape of
> the moon.
>
the moon and directly opposite the moon to rise, making bulges.
Shane D. Killian
>
> Shaney boy claims to be Christian yet can't stand
> the idea that God was right in Genesis.
>
Boaty has to pretend I'm an atheist because his faith is so weak his
fragile little ego can't handle the fact that he's *wrong* about
anything, and so he displaces any attack against him to an attack
against God.
Hubris, anyone?
> Nah, the offset center of mass shows the moon's matter
> was
>
> ==============
> RE-GATHERING
> ==============
>
How?
Shane D. Killian
>
> However, he's wrong in his description of how the inhomogeneity
> formed -- he implies it's from the Earth tugging at the material
> of the Moon and pulling the denser core toward the Earth. This
> is not how masses in orbit behave, and furthermore the Moon had
> solidified and fixed this mass distribution some considerable
> mass distribution, not the other way around.
>
And given enough time, all the planets will be in a tidal lock with the
sun.
> IIRC, he's also wrong in a second way -- the "extra" mass is
> on the side *away* from the Earth. This is easy to explain
> by standard science -- the tidal lock on the inhomogeneity
> works the same way -- but is again inconsistent with his own
> explanation of how it arose.
>
name-calling.
Shane D. Killian
>
> Shaney boy wrote:
>
> > What is the mechanism behind this sorting? Write a paper
> > on it and win the Nobel prize.
>
> How can somebody win a Nobel prize for repeating
> what God said in Genesis?
>
> As for the sorting of heavier matter, it's clearly
> seen all time here on earth.
>
> The preliminary earth and moon matter was NOT
> in a "pure vacuum", there were gases, dust, liquids,
> solids, etc... all trying to settle out.
>
> See muddy water for an equivalent, the heaviest matter
> settles in first, the lighter matter remains out away
> swirling around longer. Eventually for the earth/moon
> system, the moon would form from the lighter material
> that hadn't yet settled in.
>
Stix
(response reordered for clarity)
>Stix wrote in message
[re: The shroud of Turin]
>>already been *conclusively* dated (with 95% confidence) to CE
>>1260-1390 -- Johnny's contrary "plasticized fungus!!" squeals
>>certainly not withstanding)
>Hrmm.. I beg to differ.
No need to beg -- and if you want me to agree just offer some evidence
that's as cogent as the actual report from the original testing as
published in 'Nature' (volume 337, 16 February 1989) that I have
sitting right here in front of me.
<winks at Fritz>
> There was a recent television program,
Wow! No shit? A recent *television program* huh?
Well, on the strength of that alone I guess I should simply toss these
test results in the trash . . . but wait, there's more . . .
> by one of the big 3 stations,
You don't say! One of the THREE BIGGIES??
Shit, I'm really ready to crumple these test results now, yessiree!
But wait! There's still more . . .
> that said that after further research and study,
Well now, only a fool would argue with that!
I mean, even though this alleged 'further research and study'
necessarily invalidates the concurring results from three separate
laboratories, I sure as eggs don't need any further convincing than
the TV claim that 'further research and study ' . . . blah blah blah.
Nope, if it's on TV it's good enough for me!
> that they DO believe that teh shroud is from around the time of Jesus.
'They' who? The television station? The christers who probably made
the program? Some schmoe producer with a Boatwright bug who's seen a
few pictures of the shroud? Who's 'they'?
> And this was recently aired.
And it means exactly SQUAT.
But point me toward the peer-verified results from this alleged
'further research and study' and we'll talk. Until then however, the
shroud's calendar age range remains around 1260-1390, as confirmed by
three laboratories: The Department of Physics, University of Arizona,
Tucson, Arizona, USA; The Research Laboratory for Archaeology and
History of Art, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; and The Institut für
Mittelenergiephysik, ETH-Hönggerberg, CH-8093 Zürich, Switzerland.
Rational skepticism, Nate -- you could do worse than to exercise it.
Stix
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Clint
Stix wrote:
> John P. Boatwright posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
> ABSOLUTELY, eh?
>
> What's this then:
>
> "Note: The above information was written by John P. Boatwright and is
> freely given. The information is simply my opinion based on how I
> perceive the content discussed."
>
> Huh? It's only *your* (which speaks for itself) OPINION??
>
> B-but Johnny, you just used the words 'proof' and 'absolutely'!
>
> So what is it? Absolute proof, or merely your opinion?
>
> (anyway, too bad for Johnny's Shroud fetish that the fabled shroud has
> already been *conclusively* dated (with 95% confidence) to CE
> 1260-1390 -- Johnny's contrary "plasticized fungus!!" squeals
> certainly not withstanding)
>
> "Anyone reading such should use their own judgement as to
> whether or not the information has any value to them."
>
I actually saw this program. While they offered a theory on why the
Radio carbon dating could be wrong. ( they said "was wrong" ) They avoided
another issue with a simple assertion.
In the original program that basically invalidated the shroud as
genuine there was an interesting discussion concerning the "blood" stains
on the fabric. Examples of what was on the "shroud" showed to be something
other than blood. Instead of soaking into the fabric, rather it coated it.
Not only that but it crystallized in a manor that was unlike blood.
In the latest program this issue was passed over with the statement
the smears were indeed blood. There was no supporting information to back
this except the words of the person doing the reevaluation.
<snip rest>
Ty Shrake
"John P. Boatwright" wrote:
>
> Ty Shrake wrote:
>
> > I have no desire to waste anymore time with a complete idiot. Until you
> > educate yourself you'll be a blathering moron your whole life.
>
> And you're the one that said the below line:
>
> =========================================================
> > > > Your statement "...and given water in sun spots on
> > > > the sun, ..." is completely nonsensical.
> ==========================================================
>
> It's kinda too bad that CNN reported it, I guess they were
> a roll 'er somethin, making up all kinds of strange science
> "nonsense" (facts).
See my comments below...
>
> ha ha ha...
>
> "Ya bob, IR signature of water in sun spots... but let's
> not tell Ty... he's gets real upset when discussing
> science facts, probably have another food fight..."
>
> Let's see, in the last week:
>
> * Xalan (an atheist) said X-ray's couldn't be focused
> and X-ray telescopes weren't used to VIEW X-rays.
> Little did Xalan (a self proclaimed X-ray specialist)
> know, Chandra (another of MANY X-ray telescopes) is
> going up this summer, grazing incidence mirrors used
> to focus the X-rays, and of course, NASA's running
> the show again.
>
> * Kenny said the moon's center of mass is offset away
> from earth, even said it's on IIRC...
>
> I guess Kenny didn't see the reference to the
> moon's center of mass being TOWARDS the earth by
> 1.2 miles and that it's been proposed to have been
> caused by magma flows on the near side, the thicker
> crust on the far side stopping such flows, hence
> the moon being denser on the near side.
>
> Of course Shaney boy started doubting this first so
> Ken tagging along isn't such a big deal... 'cept
> Shaney boy does claim to be an artist and Ken claims
> to do research for Bell...
>
> * So now Ty claims the IR signature of water isn't in
> sun spots on the sun, and saying such would be
> nonsense... I suppose CNN reporting it last year won't
> help matters any.
Too bad you're a flatly stupid human being who misinterprets everything
he reads. I never made the claim you say I made regarding sun spots. I
said your SENTENCE was nonsensical. It made no sense. You communicate
with the acumen of a four year old. If this was an English class you
would have failed.
But don't let your arrogance and retardation deter you from exercising
your profound reading comprehension problem.
Your friend and mine,
...Ty
>
> And all this is shear diversion from God being
> RIGHT ALL ALONG in Genesis in the bible (the
> original Hebrew matches quite well, english
> translation assumptions from HUNDREDS of years
> ago being off, is to be expected.).
>
> God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
>
> ====================================================
> Proof God ABSOLUTELY predicted Jesus as shown on the
> Shroud of Turin in the >>> OLD TESTAMENT <<<:
> http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/zec11.htm
> ====================================================
>
> And of course:
Fritz
wrote:
> Nathan Chasteen posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
> (response reordered for clarity)
>
> >Stix wrote in message
>
> [re: The shroud of Turin]
>
> >>already been *conclusively* dated (with 95% confidence) to CE
> >>1260-1390 -- Johnny's contrary "plasticized fungus!!" squeals
> >>certainly not withstanding)
>
> >Hrmm.. I beg to differ.
>
> No need to beg -- and if you want me to agree just offer some evidence
> that's as cogent as the actual report from the original testing as
> published in 'Nature' (volume 337, 16 February 1989) that I have
> sitting right here in front of me.
>
> <winks at Fritz>
<returns wink>
I wonder if John will actually read this report. It is absolutely
conclusive, with samples sent to three of the best dating laboratories in
the world under the watchful eye of a team of scientists and church
officials, and they all agree that the the cloth was made over a thousand
years after the event some wish to associate it with. Somewhat telling is
an admission in the text by a historian that the manufacture of religious
artifacts such as this was a cottage industry during this period.
More telling is the admission in this post (an admission which was snipped
in this response) that Mr. Boatwright considers a television program to be
an authoritative source of scientific information.
Fritz
--
"If we assume that man actually does resemble God, then we are
forced into the impossible theory that God is a coward, an idiot
and a bounder." H.L. Mencken
John P. Boatwright
> I wonder if John will actually read this report.
> It is absolutely conclusive, with samples sent
> to three of the best dating laboratories in the
> world under the watchful eye of a team of scientists
> and church officials, and they all agree that the
> cloth was made over a thousand years after the
> event some wish to associate it with. Somewhat
> telling is an admission in the text by a historian
> that the manufacture of religious artifacts such
> as this was a cottage industry during this period.
There are similiar >>> CRUDE <<< drawings predating the dates
the test results claim by HUNDREDS of years.
There are mummy wrappings with 1000 year errors using
the same C-14 test methods.
ha ha ha...
Too bad the C-14 boys didn't consult their mummies.
Huh...
Then there's God... he described what the shroud
shows about Jesus >>> 520 years BEFORE <<< Jesus
showed up.
Zec 11 shows God KNEW exactly what would happen
to Jesus, and >>> HOW HE'D APPEAR ON THE SHROUD <<<:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/zec11.htm
> More telling is the admission in this post (an admission
> which was snipped in this response) that Mr. Boatwright
> considers a television program to be an authoritative
> source of scientific information.
So TV is worthless as a source for scientific information?
Poor, poor, Carl Sagan, wasted all that time...
what was it, billions and billions of hours...
and Fritz thinks it was all for nothing, TV being
worthless as a source of scientific information.
Regardless, the University of Texas site shows a shroud
fiber with MASSIVE build up of bacteria and fungus, similar
to what's seen on mummies with 1000 year errors in the
C-14 dating.
Oh well.
Jeffrey L. Adam
message <1SfP2.27627$R92....@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>Having seen the Shroud last year at the SinDome I came to the conclusion
>that it is real, no doubt in my mind what so ever.
<snip remainder of christer crap>
The Shroud of Turin is nothing more than a disgusting, dirty piece of cloth
that hasn't seen a washing machine in 800 years. I can think of only one
other dirty, disgusting piece of cloth that's never been washed and that's
even older than the Shroud of Turin: Oldguyteck's underwear. I'll bet if he
looked real hard he could probably find the image of his dead Jewish hippie
god in the brown and yellow stains.
Jeffrey L. Adam
Atheist #1413
------------------------
"For there is nothing neither good nor bad but thinking makes it so ... I
could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space
..."
-- William Shakespeare
from Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii
Tom Scalf
<sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Nathan Chasteen wrote:
>
>> Hrmm.. I beg to differ. There was a recent television
>> program, by one of the big 3 stations, that said that
>> after further research and study, that they DO believe
>> that teh shroud is from around the time of Jesus. And
>> this was recently aired.
>
>Atheists don't like to hear this so you better
>post it a few more times.
>
>> Stix wrote in message
>
>Ya right.
>
>Huh, looks like people are finally figuring it out.
>
Too bad you aren't, boaty. The television show Nathan mentioned was
on either the Discovery Channel or the Learning Channel. It
chronicled the 1978 STRUP fiasco. No mention was made of the much
more complete and reputable results of the 1988 investigation.
Tom
Ross Murison
that it is real, no doubt in my mind what so ever.
will be on display again in the year 2000
Kind regards,
Ross
P.S. Not only did Jesus die for our sins, he also showed us what we are
capable of accomplishing.
Snip
John P. Boatwright
> "John P. Boatwright" wrote:
> > Ty Shrake wrote:
> > > I have no desire to waste anymore time with a
> > > complete idiot. Until you educate yourself
> > > you'll be a blathering moron your whole life.
> > And you're the one that said the below line:
> > =========================================================
> > > > > Your statement "...and given water in sun spots on
> > > > > the sun, ..." is completely nonsensical.
> > ==========================================================
> > It's kinda too bad that CNN reported it, I guess they were on
> > a roll 'er somethin, making up all kinds of strange science
> > "nonsense" (facts).
> See my comments below...
So let's skip right to 'em.
> Too bad you're a flatly stupid human being who misinterprets
> everything he reads. I never made the claim you say I made
> regarding sun spots.
It was an EXACT quote that YOU made.
Are you denying it?
> I said your SENTENCE was nonsensical.
No, you EXACTLY said:
==================================================
Your statement "...and given water in sun spots on
the sun, ..." is completely nonsensical.
==================================================
It's a KNOWN FACT Ty, there is evidence of WATER
in sun spots on the sun. It can't be claimed as
"completely nonsensical".
Sheeze...
And the previous statement I made before you said it
was nonsense:
"The Hebrews had no term for hydrogen, and given water
in sun spots on the sun, God was easily right in saying
"waters" since science ADMITS that the original form
of most all matter was hydrogen and/or other lighter
elements. The heavier elements showed up after fusion
started in stars."
I was just dumping ALL THE FACTS, you then claimed
the FACTS were nonsense.
So I guess you have a problem with FACTS that
agree with what God said in Genesis.
Funny how atheists are like that.
But your denial is pointless, since science has
PROVEN that there is in fact water in sun spots...
yes, there is water at the sun... yes, given a
planet forming explosion of matter from a pre-sun...
water can in fact exist at that pre-sun just like
God said in Genesis.
It's simple stuff too, you denying it is the...
huh where'd that go... oh there it is... is the:
"standard atheist position (SAP), claim any
proof given isn't really proof (CAPGIRP),
hey kids, get off that X-ray telescope (HKGOTXT)"
And if you can't accept it, there is always the basic
fact that Hebrew had NO TERM for hydrogen, they did
have the word for water, water being made up of the
"lighter elements" hydrogen and oxygen, lighter elements
initially assumed at the start by science.
But for sure, face the facts, there's water all
over out in space.
God was right in saying he separated the waters
below the "firmament" (heavier matter exploding
outwards) from the waters above the firmament.
Easily God was right in saying "waters".
> It made no sense. You communicate with the acumen of a
> four year old. If this was an English class you
> would have failed.
We're discussing science >>> FACTS <<< and how God
was right.
You thinking it's time for english is a bit off.
> But don't let your arrogance and retardation deter you
> from exercising your profound reading comprehension problem.
ha ha ha...
So which is it Ty, do you admit there's water at the sun?
Do you admit water exists in deep space?
Do you admit water exists outside the bounds of earth?
If so, you have to admit God can describe "waters" near
the start and NOT have to justify it... it's easily
seen in space... right now.
Obviously God was right.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described planet formation BEFORE science did:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/planets.htm
raven1
<angus.b...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Having seen the Shroud last year at the SinDome I came to the conclusion
>that it is real, no doubt in my mind what so ever.
Really? How did you ascertain that? What experiment(s) did you perform
on it, and with what methodology? Where did you publish your data?
What did the peer-review process have to say about your work? I'd
really love to know the answer to any of the above.
Oh... I see... you just saw the shroud, and * wanted* to believe, so
you just decided to do so without any actual *evidence* of its
authenticity. Sorry, but even the Catholic church no longer claims
that it's genuine.
>I strongly suggest if it's in your power to do the same thing, I beleice it
>will be on display again in the year 2000
>
>Kind regards,
>Ross
>
>
>P.S. Not only did Jesus die for our sins, he also showed us what we are
>capable of accomplishing.
Really? You mean we can all get ourselves killed for pissing off the
local authorities and have our trusty sidekicks form a religion around
a mythologized version of us? Nifty!
>
>
>
>Snip
>
>Oh well.
>
>God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Is this Boatwright posting under an alias?
--
All Hail Fondle the Elephant! (Official mascot of THE KIND)
Our debut CD-Single, "Rubber Girl" is now available! (Also featuring "Undertow" and "The Road"). Look for our long-awaited full-length CD "You're Soaking In It" in March! E-mail us for details and upcoming shows!
Ty Shrake
You're a blathering idiot, Boatwrong. I won't waste anymore of my time
with a blathering idiot.
Good riddance.
Your friend and mine,
...Ty
> God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
>
Michael Suttkus, II
"John P. Boatwright" wrote:
> Obviously God was right.
>
> God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
>
> Proof God described planet formation BEFORE science did:
> http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/planets.htm
No wait, Odin was right.
Listen, the universe is big, right, you might almost say
giant.
And it's got water in it, right? And it's cold?
Clearly, Odin told the world that the Earth was formed from
a frost giant. I don't know what could be more clear.
The elder Edda also states that the frost was formed by the
mixture of biting cold and burning heat, a better
description of the big bang I cannot imagine.
Hey, even better, it says man was born from the sweat of the
frost giant, clearly an understanding that we came from the
water!
Obviously, Odin was right.
Moral: Bad logic + reaching for what you want to be true =
bad conclusions.
Dave Oldridge
Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Fritz wrote:
>
>> I wonder if John will actually read this report.
>> It is absolutely conclusive, with samples sent
>> to three of the best dating laboratories in the
>> world under the watchful eye of a team of scientists
>> and church officials, and they all agree that the
>> cloth was made over a thousand years after the
>> event some wish to associate it with. Somewhat
>> telling is an admission in the text by a historian
>> that the manufacture of religious artifacts such
>> as this was a cottage industry during this period.
>
>There are similiar >>> CRUDE <<< drawings predating the dates
>the test results claim by HUNDREDS of years.
>
>There are mummy wrappings with 1000 year errors using
>the same C-14 test methods.
>
>ha ha ha...
>
>Too bad the C-14 boys didn't consult their mummies.
They probably did, but you probably were not paying attention. The
word mummy is derived from a word for asphalt. Nor are petroleum
products the only fossil products used in wrapping a mummy. Plaster
was also involved in some of the more fancy jobs. And, unless there
is wholesale modern contamination, the errors tend to be in the wrong
direction to be of any use to shroud theorists.
>Then there's God... he described what the shroud
>shows about Jesus >>> 520 years BEFORE <<< Jesus
>showed up.
>
>Zec 11 shows God KNEW exactly what would happen
>to Jesus, and >>> HOW HE'D APPEAR ON THE SHROUD <<<:
>
>http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/zec11.htm
Sure and you'll be offering what for my bridges?
>Regardless, the University of Texas site shows a shroud
>fiber with MASSIVE build up of bacteria and fungus, similar
>to what's seen on mummies with 1000 year errors in the
>C-14 dating.
Fungus isn't a problem. If it gets its carbon from the shroud, it
doesn't affect the date. Bacteria photosythesizing modern carbon (or
other modern additives are the only alternative, and, as I've
discussed before, it takes a LOT of contamination to give a medieval
date for something of 1st century origin. Older things are moved
further by contamination because of the smaller amount of C14 present.
Dave Oldridge
Shane D. Killian
>
> There are similiar >>> CRUDE <<< drawings predating the dates
> the test results claim by HUNDREDS of years.
>
like what everyone expected it to...
> There are mummy wrappings with 1000 year errors using
> the same C-14 test methods.
>
bioplastic residue would have increased the shrouds mass threefold if
this were the case.
> > More telling is the admission in this post (an admission
> > which was snipped in this response) that Mr. Boatwright
> > considers a television program to be an authoritative
> > source of scientific information.
>
> So TV is worthless as a source for scientific information?
>
> Poor, poor, Carl Sagan, wasted all that time...
> what was it, billions and billions of hours...
> and Fritz thinks it was all for nothing, TV being
> worthless as a source of scientific information.
>
*never* advocated getting your information solely from TV.
> Regardless, the University of Texas site shows a shroud
> fiber with MASSIVE build up of bacteria and fungus, similar
> to what's seen on mummies with 1000 year errors in the
> C-14 dating.
>
Shane D. Killian
>
> Having seen the Shroud last year at the SinDome I came to the conclusion
> that it is real, no doubt in my mind what so ever.
>
originated. All of the evidence points to a ~13th century artist.
Nathan Chasteen
Stix wrote in message <370c0a3...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
>Nathan Chasteen posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
>(response reordered for clarity)
>
>>Stix wrote in message
>
>[re: The shroud of Turin]
>
>>>already been *conclusively* dated (with 95% confidence) to CE
>>>1260-1390 -- Johnny's contrary "plasticized fungus!!" squeals
>>>certainly not withstanding)
>
>
I will get some details for you. I have to remember what station this shit
was on. Yeah one of the BIGGIES.. I hope you didn't spum in your pants over
that one.
Off to look for the info. BTW, this study was more recent that the 1989 one
you have. So I would say that it is valid. At any rate... bbl.
Nathan Chasteen
>
>Oh, it came from one of the three *big* stations, huh? Holy bullshit,
>Batman, it must be true! Oh fer sure, dude, the mainstream media would
>never fucking tell a lie!
>
>BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The report yes, the research no. I have to go find out where the research
was done, but it was reportedly done by a major research company.
>
>Lemme guess, another brainwashed christer, are you?
>
No response really neccesary, but it is evident that you are very biased, as
biased as you would accuse me of being. You don't know.
>>-Nate
>
>
>Dipshit.
>
Oh ouch, how ineteligent, petty name calling. Fucknut.
>
Nathan Chasteen
read a mesage from him below. I did find this and many other interesting
articles on the shroud. This topic is very debatable. And btw, not much in
science is "conclusive" theories and hypothesis change almost daily.
Check out http://freespace.virgin.net/crc.english/shroud.htm
DATING OF THE IMAGE
BY MEANS OF PALAEOGRAPHY
THE IMAGE DATED TO WITHIN TWO YEARS
Father Francis Filas, SJ, mathematician, physicist and theologian, professor
of Loyola University, Chicago, recalled to God on the 15th February 1985,
aged 69 years.
Our historical investigation finds striking confirmation through
palaeography, which dates the image to within two years. Our late lamented
friend, Father Filas, sent us the complete file of this discovery, which, to
his credit, he brought to completion though not having initiated it himself.
This fact needs to be recalled, for it all began with a consensus of
American scientists, vouched for by the preliminary work of the STURP team
at Albuquerque in 1977 and by Jumper’s communication to the Congress of
Turin in 1978. But it all ended in such a persecution of Father Filas
starting from the meeting at Los Alamos in 1979, that to this day his file
is as good as banned worldwide.
Why? For one reason only, which is totally alien to science: because we have
here a dating of the image, and not just of the cloth, dating it to almost
the actual year of the Event itself. It is the stamp or seal of Pontius
Pilate, giving a date to which no scientist can raise any objection. Unless
he maintains, as does Laurentin, who wrote to me saying that he can see
nothing! Might as well deny the light of day in broad daylight. Judge for
yourselves.
PILATE’S LEPTON
It is the three-dimensional analysis (figure 27) which gave birth to this
hypothesis, but even a look at an ordinary photograph will clearly reveal a
kind of disc placed over each eyelid, dark on the positive and light on the
negative.
Figure 27: Close-up of the Face and facial and dorsal images as the appear
on the video terminal of the VP8 image analyser.
Figure 28: The enlargement of the eyelid shows an imprint of the same size
(15mm) and the same cut as this coin (to its left) stamped with the
astrologer's staff, the emblem of Pontius Pilate.
Figure 29: The imprint of the astrologer's staff bordered on its curved
side with four Greek letters: Y CAI.
An enlargement of this imprint, on the right eyelid (figure 28), enabled
Father Filas to recognise the imprint of a coin struck under Pontius Pilate:
the same size, same cut, the same effigy, the astrologer’s staff (figure
29), the same inscription recognisable, from four quite legible letters, as
a certain coin duly catalogued for the years 16, 17 and 18 of Tiberius
Caesar, which would be the years 29, 30 and 31 of our era (figure 28).
Figure 30: Three types of coins corresponding to the cut, to the motif and
to the inscription of that which closed the eyes of Jesus. On the obverse
side, all three bear the staff in the centre with the inscription TIBEPIOY
KAICAPOC round the border.
a).On the reverse side of the first coin, there is a crown of laurels
surrounding the inscription LIS which signifies the year 16 of the reign of
Tiberius, the year 29 of our era.
b). On the reverse side of the second coin, LIZ indicates the year 17 of the
reign of Tiberius, the year 30 of our era.
b). On the reverse side of the third coin, LIH indicates the year 18 of the
reign of Tiberius, the year 31 of our era.
AN ANOMALY THAT DOES NOT DECEIVE
Confirmed by three-dimensional analysis (figure 31), the discovery was found
to be definitively corroborated by its very fruitfulness, for it led to some
unexpected progress in numismatic science. Four Greek letters, Y CAI, are in
fact all that are needed to reconstruct the inscription TIBEPIO [Y KAI]
CAPOC, "of Tiberius Caesar". But there is an anomaly: on the Holy Shroud a
Latin C replaces the initial Greek K of KAICAPOC, which figures on all the
coin collections known up to 1980 (see figure 32).
Figure 31: Confirmation of the three-dimensional analysis. The letters Y CAI
are clearly visible at the top left, as well as the staff and even the
outline of the coin.
Figure 32: above, a coin of Pontius Pilate with the staff surmounted by the
letters CAICAPOC, with a Latin 'C' instead of the Greek 'K'.
Below: the imprint superimposed on a coin of Pontius Pilate shows that the
letters Y CAI form the visible part on the Holy Shroud of the Greek
inscription:
TIBEPIO [Y CAI] CAPOC,
"of Tiberius Caesar", with the same anomaly: 'C' instead of 'K'.
Thereafter, to those who accused Father Filas of letting his imagination run
away with him or of taking his desires for reality, he answered that, not
being a numismatist, he had so little desire to see a coin of Pilate’s that
"before I accidentally stumbled on this, he wrote to me, I would not have
known a Pilate coin from a hole in the wall". He was obliged, therefore, to
consult the numismatic specialists, and it was then that his discovery
proved to be so little the work of his imagination that it was responsible
for a positive progress in the study of numismatics itself. It revealed that
the anomaly observed on the Holy Shroud and already recognised as being of
common usage in inscriptions but hitherto unknown in numismatics, existed
identically on other collection coins struck under Pontius Pilate, which no
one had noticed before.
We have here a document dated within a year or two by the express Will of
Him Who caused this Image to be imprinted on the cloth. For one would have
expected to see shards of broken pottery used for covering the eyes, as was
the Jewish custom, but it would not have been possible to read a date from
them. Whereas the little coin proclaims: it is "under Pontius Pilate" that
this Man suffered
~*~*~*~
Fritz
>Fritz wrote:
[-]
>> More telling is the admission in this post (an admission
>> which was snipped in this response) that Mr. Boatwright
>> considers a television program to be an authoritative
>> source of scientific information.
>
>So TV is worthless as a source for scientific information?
As an authoritative source? Have you ever read a scientific article in
which a television program is cited as a primary source? Or maybe I
should ask if you have ever read an article in the primary scientific
literature - Nature, Science, PNAS, JBC, etc.?
Television is as worthless - or as worthwhile - a source of scientific
information as the primary sources behind the programs.
>Poor, poor, Carl Sagan, wasted all that time...
>what was it, billions and billions of hours...
>and Fritz thinks it was all for nothing, TV being
>worthless as a source of scientific information.
Learn to understand what you read, John. The word "authoritative" was
used for a purpose.
Sagan based his series on the primary data which is in the peer-reviewed
literature. It is that data which made it worthwhile, and it is the
absence of such data that make "documentaries" about the supernatural
worthless.
Jeffrey L. Adam
>
>>
>>Oh, it came from one of the three *big* stations, huh? Holy bullshit,
>>Batman, it must be true! Oh fer sure, dude, the mainstream media would
>>never fucking tell a lie!
>>
>>BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>The report yes, the research no. I have to go find out where the research
>was done, but it was reportedly done by a major research company.
>
>
>>
>>Lemme guess, another brainwashed christer, are you?
>>
>
>
>No response really neccesary, but it is evident that you are very biased,
as
>biased as you would accuse me of being. You don't know.
I never accused you of being biased - stupid, yes - but never biased.
>>>-Nate
>>
>>
>>Dipshit.
>>
>Oh ouch, how ineteligent, petty name calling. Fucknut.
>>
"Ineteligent?" Hmm, are you sure you didn't mean "intelligent?"
It least I know how to spell it.
Nathan Chasteen
from a veteran pathologist.
and http://www.shroud.com/c14debat.htm
is what we are discusing here. Read the whole thing if you can. It is a
good civil discussion, unlike some of the idiots out there, on C14 dating
and other areas concerning the shroud.
-Nate