Changes

: Of course it's not completely, 100%, absolutely physically identical, and the entry does not claim it is.  Neither are perfect twins, by the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Of course it's not completely, 100%, absolutely physically identical, and the entry does not claim it is.  Neither are perfect twins, by the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

2. [http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/tides.html]  The link given about Mercury also gives the scientific explanation about the moon BTW.  Also, the deal with Mercury (from that article) was apparently because it was claimed that the direct visual observation of it indicated that it had a single side facing the sun; *that* was wrong. We can clearly see that the moon presents the same side.

2. [http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/tides.html]  The link given about Mercury also gives the scientific explanation about the moon BTW.  Also, the deal with Mercury (from that article) was apparently because it was claimed that the direct visual observation of it indicated that it had a single side facing the sun; *that* was wrong. We can clearly see that the moon presents the same side.

This doesn't refute the statement in point 2 that "The cause of the bulge on the Moon to lock in its rotation remains a mystery to those who reject design."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: This doesn't refute the statement in point 2 that "The cause of the bulge on the Moon to lock in its rotation remains a mystery to those who reject design."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

 

:: quoting from the link: "Since Earth's gravity is much stronger than the Moon's, the tides from the Earth on the Moon are much stronger than the Moon's tides on the Earth. The Moon has tidal bulges just like the Earth, and so it too was slowed by the Earth's pull on its nearer bulge."  And especially if the moon started out as a molten mass it would have solidified in a non-spherical shape as a result. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

3. [http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html]

3. [http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html]

Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

 

:: Did you even bother to read the link?  Right now point 3 is "The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth."  But iron does not 'permeate' the earth, it is far far more common in the core than in the outer layers.  And the computer modeling mentioned at the link demonstrated that if a large enough meteor struck the earth, its iron would sink to the core and blast out a large amount of the less dense outer layers and *that* is what they're saying the moon was made from.  They further argue that "The moon has exactly the same oxygen isotope composition as the Earth, whereas Mars rocks and meteorites from other parts of the solar system have different oxygen isotope compositions." -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

4. That's basically "Slichter's dilemma" and was solved by the 80's [http://talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html]

4. That's basically "Slichter's dilemma" and was solved by the 80's [http://talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html]

Talkorigins.org is not an authority.  Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Talkorigins.org is not an authority.  Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

 

:: talkorigins.org has a lot of very useful material based on mainstream science.  You can argue against it point by point, but dismissing it out of hand is not very useful to fixing the mistakes in this article.  My point, if you actually read the article, is that since the 80's its been demonstrated that with a better model of the continents incorporated into the earth-moon system you get an age for the moon that is several billion years old, not "a young age for the Moon of no more than one billion years" which led to "Slichter's dilemma". -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

5. There are "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy alone. [http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/milkyway.php]  So "few" could easily be many many million in just our 'neighborhood' of the universe.

5. There are "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy alone. [http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/milkyway.php]  So "few" could easily be many many million in just our 'neighborhood' of the universe.

Many millions of solar systems with just one sun?  You need to support that far-fetched claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Many millions of solar systems with just one sun?  You need to support that far-fetched claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

 

:: Aschlafly, perhaps you are not aware that the stars we see in the sky are actually different suns.  They only look faint and point-like because they are so far away.  Astronomers are now finding that many of these stars have their own planets orbiting them, so yes, evidence does point to many millions of solar systems (each orbiting their own parent star) existing in our Galaxy alone.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 12:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, perhaps you are not aware that the stars we see in the sky are actually different suns. They only look faint and point-like because they are so far away.  Astronomers are now finding that many of these stars have their own planets orbiting them, so yes, evidence does point to many millions of solar systems (each orbiting their own parent star) existing in our Galaxy alone.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 12:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/news_releases/news_0601_10.html] states that "Two out of every three stars in the Milky Way is a member of a binary or multiple star system" So in the article where it says "Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun." its actually 'one of the third'.  Combine that with "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy, that's dozens of billions with only one sun.  And BTW, there are "many billion" galaxies in the universe (likely somewhere between 10 and 125 billion [http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/TopazMurray.shtml]) so the number of one sun solar systems is, literally, astronomical ;) The only thing "far-fetched" is to claim that the article as currently written is accurate in the least. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

All five of these points should really be dropped, as has been previously suggested. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

All five of these points should really be dropped, as has been previously suggested. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)