16
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 63:
Line 63: + + + + + +
→Current Article Factually Incorrect
The article needs work, and even contradicts itself. Item 2 says "without any plausible physical reason",
The article needs work, and even contradicts itself. Item 2 says "without any plausible physical reason",
and then gives tidal forces as a physical reason. Item 3 says "There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin" after giving the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth. Item 5 is completely silly. There are billions of solar systems with only one sun. We don't know of any with something like the Earth and Moon, but there are certainly many with one sun. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
and then gives tidal forces as a physical reason. Item 3 says "There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin" after giving the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth. Item 5 is completely silly. There are billions of solar systems with only one sun. We don't know of any with something like the Earth and Moon, but there are certainly many with one sun. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I admire Ronald Reagan as a great man. I also see dangerous doctrines of social engineering coming out of the ideology of Darwinism. But when I look at this locked moon page, I see a strange message that conservatives shouldn't overthink astronomy. There is a lot that the page doesn't say about the moon. It doesn't give its diameter, its mass, the length of its orbit, or its distance from the earth. It doesn't give its composition as studied in the Apollo program. Heck, it doesn't even say that men landed on the moon at all! All it does is give a numbered argument for why the moon is evidence for young-Earth creation specifically. It also has only one single reference for one of its many points.
So I took an interest in the references. I did not know that the moon is receding from the Earth, so I looked that up. NASA says that the moon is receding from the Earth at 3.8 centimeters per year [http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html], whereas this page says: "The Moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 6 inches per year. The Moon could never have been closer than about 150,000 miles or it would have been broken up by tidal forces. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 6 inches per year,..." If you are only interested in what the rate of recession is less than, why stop at 6 inches? Why not say, "The moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 10 feet per year. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 10 feet per year..."
I also did not know much about the surface composition of the moon, so I looked that up too. This page says, "The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth." I think that the first half of that is true, but according to this page [http://www.permanent.com/l-apollo.htm], the Earth's surface also lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth. Are we not supposed to think about the difference between surfaces and permeations? [[User:PBrown|PBrown]] 13:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
== Simple rebuttal to Aschlafly's Moon point #4 ==
== Simple rebuttal to Aschlafly's Moon point #4 ==