Changes

==Schlafly's Opinion Again?==

==Liberal disagreement with Moon entry==

I couldn't decide whether to erase this article and make an actual page for the moon, or rebut the points made by Aschlafly.  I figured I might be banned if I just rewrote it, but this article is so silly that it doesn't really warrent a point by point rebuttal.

I couldn't decide whether to erase this article and make an actual page for the moon, or rebut the points made by Aschlafly.  I figured I might be banned if I just rewrote it, but this article is so silly that it doesn't really warrent a point by point rebuttal.

1. If you check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse the Wikipedia article for Solar Eclipses], you'll note "An annular eclipse occurs when the Sun and Moon are exactly in line, but the apparent size of the Moon is smaller than that of the Sun. Hence the Sun appears as a very bright ring, or annulus, surrounding the outline of the Moon." (there's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RingfoermigeSonnenfinsternis.jpg a pic] too) so its not always a perfect match; this is because the moon's orbit is not a perfect circle, but rather an ellipse: "The distance from from the Earth to the Moon varies by about 13% as the Moon travels in its orbit around us." [http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ASTR110L_S03/lunarorbit.html]

1. If you check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse the Wikipedia article for Solar Eclipses], you'll note "An annular eclipse occurs when the Sun and Moon are exactly in line, but the apparent size of the Moon is smaller than that of the Sun. Hence the Sun appears as a very bright ring, or annulus, surrounding the outline of the Moon." (there's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RingfoermigeSonnenfinsternis.jpg a pic] too) so its not always a perfect match; this is because the moon's orbit is not a perfect circle, but rather an ellipse: "The distance from from the Earth to the Moon varies by about 13% as the Moon travels in its orbit around us." [http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ASTR110L_S03/lunarorbit.html]

: 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.

: 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."

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)

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

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

Your point?

Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 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?

Talkorigins.org is not an authority.  Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 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.

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)

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)