52
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 136:
Line 136: + +
→"Global" (no pun intended) reply to the above
:" any other atheistic explanation ". Ok, but filling the gaps in science with religious faith is not in the least bit helping anyone. All you have done is criticise the current theory. There is most definitely no religious explanation that can be tested since it requires a person to have faith in something that cannot be seen, heard, sensed etc. For example, there is an anomaly with the Pioneer 10 spacecraft where it has veered off course and can not as yet be explained by scientists. One could say that God had a "hand" in this, but we cannot test this hypothesis at all and requires complete faith to continue to believe this idea. That is why more scientific investigation needs to be conducted and not signing the idea straight off to God.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 19:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:" any other atheistic explanation ". Ok, but filling the gaps in science with religious faith is not in the least bit helping anyone. All you have done is criticise the current theory. There is most definitely no religious explanation that can be tested since it requires a person to have faith in something that cannot be seen, heard, sensed etc. For example, there is an anomaly with the Pioneer 10 spacecraft where it has veered off course and can not as yet be explained by scientists. One could say that God had a "hand" in this, but we cannot test this hypothesis at all and requires complete faith to continue to believe this idea. That is why more scientific investigation needs to be conducted and not signing the idea straight off to God.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 19:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:[[Answers in Genesis]] ascribes to the idea that "the moon was specially created ex nihilo at its present distance and in its present orbit some 6,000 years ago" [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/moon.asp] A [[Moon Theories]] page will not resolve the conflict then since there is a fundamentally unresolved matter of the age of the universe (e.g. mainstream science estimates that the moon and earth are nearly a million times older than AiG does) from which most of the conflict between mainstream science and biblical literalism derives IMHO. There is no need for rhetoric about 'atheistic explanations' BTW. The current scientific explanation is basically a glorified version of 'a big rock hit a bigger rock and knocked off a piece'. The "several striking characteristics that only be described as artistic in design" sounds rather like the Virgin Mary sightings in baking pans, etc. [http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1792037/posts] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4468275.stm] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2999172.stm] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4034787.stm] that is, people seeing what they want to see... -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
== Article is disturbing ==
== Article is disturbing ==