1,767
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 32:
Line 32: + + Line 38:
Line 40: + + Line 46:
Line 50: + + + + + + +
→Honest question from a frustrated user
::: No, I say it is impossible to disprove this theory, and therefore the theory is not even science. The theory is no different from saying that a UFO placed the Moon by hand there 4 billion years ago. That cannot be disproven, no matter how silly it is.
::: No, I say it is impossible to disprove this theory, and therefore the theory is not even science. The theory is no different from saying that a UFO placed the Moon by hand there 4 billion years ago. That cannot be disproven, no matter how silly it is.
::::Funny, I see this argument being used against creationism. Yes, the UFO theory is silly. Just as silly as the "God created it. The end." theory. The criticism could lead to a prove against the impact theory. Right now, we have a bunch of scientists who voice their concern. Research has to be done to see if it actually shows that the theory is wrong or not. If it is wrong (this is, of course, quite possible), then they have to work on a new theory, based on the new observations. This is science. Just not the "Let's quotemine articles and label it proof!" sort of science that is used on this site. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::: I'm quite clear that the tests that people have done are "not supportive of the theory," just as I say (and even quote the scientists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::: I'm quite clear that the tests that people have done are "not supportive of the theory," just as I say (and even quote the scientists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::: That's a silly comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::: That's a silly comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::::No. If you want "silly comment", look at [[Moon]], for example: "Only one sun and only one moon: this uniqueness may reflect the existence of only one God." --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::An attempt to balance things would begin with a rewrite the condensed list with things that speak for the impact theory (which you "expanded" by a slightly biased view of the events leading to it - you really couldn't resist inserting the "non-creationist scientists" bit, could you?).
::An attempt to balance things would begin with a rewrite the condensed list with things that speak for the impact theory (which you "expanded" by a slightly biased view of the events leading to it - you really couldn't resist inserting the "non-creationist scientists" bit, could you?).
::: Everything in the article is factual, and no significant facts have been left out of the article. Really, you have be specific about what you propose adding or deleting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Everything in the article is factual, and no significant facts have been left out of the article. Really, you have be specific about what you propose adding or deleting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Weren't the huge quote blocks specific enough? You left out anything that speaks in favor of the theory. No wonder you think that [[Theory of evolution]] is a good article. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Actually... nevermind. Judging from your replies (here and at the top of the page) and edits, I sense that this would be way more trouble than it's worth. I'll leave the article to you. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:12, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Actually... nevermind. Judging from your replies (here and at the top of the page) and edits, I sense that this would be way more trouble than it's worth. I'll leave the article to you. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:12, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: OK, fine. But you really shouldn't be complaining then. The facts are not always what we expect or want, and clearly your preconceived views have been challenged. I urge you to reconsider you views rather than oppose the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: OK, fine. But you really shouldn't be complaining then. The facts are not always what we expect or want, and clearly your preconceived views have been challenged. I urge you to reconsider you views rather than oppose the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Okay, serious case of WTF here. I'm not leaving the article because of "the facts" or because "my views" have been challenged. Look at my long post (which you butchered up into many small posts). Look at where I stated that I didn't want to turn this into an ultra-pro-this-theory playground and that I acknowledge the criticism. I was aiming for BALANCE. You know, FAIRNESS. Unlike your little propaganda piece that only tries to aim as much doubt at the current theory as possible.
:::::'''The reason why I'm leaving the article''' (and quite possibly the site soon enough) '''is YOU.''' Your completely inane posts and "articles" drive me crazy. Blogs and news sites in several countries openly mock you and your site, yet you are completely immune to any sort of criticism. Of course, you are not alone there. Don't worry. I don't just think that you alone are a sad joke on this site. Conservative gets to be your first mate on the S.S. Flawed Perception. Didn't you ever consider that you might be wrong and that the several news sites (and the whole bunch of blogs) around the world may actually have a point or two?
:::::The Moon Theory article was doomed the second you decided that the currently accepted theory is wrong. I could try to add balance to the article, but my efforts would instantly be neutralized; either through reverts or by bloating the criticism section even more. I apologize for wasting your time. I had assumed for a minute that you'd actually be interested in anything but complete bias. In retrospec, I honestly don't know why I ever assumed such a silly thing.
:::::Why don't you just deliver the ''coup de grâce'' and "protect" it against liberal vandalism? You could even give control over it to Conservative, I'm sure he'll be delighted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
The criticism section is incoherent. If the Giant-Impact theory fail lacks testability and falsifiability, then why does it matter that the Moon lacks in siderophilic elements? The article goes on to discuss other tests. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
The criticism section is incoherent. If the Giant-Impact theory fail lacks testability and falsifiability, then why does it matter that the Moon lacks in siderophilic elements? The article goes on to discuss other tests. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
: Once I realized that the Giant-Impact theory isn't science, the other articles don't matter to me. But obviously some people insist on clinging to the Giant-Impact theory even though it isn't science. To them, these other facts might matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
: Once I realized that the Giant-Impact theory isn't science, the other articles don't matter to me. But obviously some people insist on clinging to the Giant-Impact theory even though it isn't science. To them, these other facts might matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)