Moon
(align) |
(→Commemoration: moon sexing is a difficult topic for the inexperienced) |
||
| Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
==Commemoration== | ==Commemoration== | ||
| − | The Moon, as the second most hallowed object in the sky, is honored by having first (or second, depending on your calendric issues) day of the week named | + | The Moon, as the second most hallowed object in the sky, is honored by having first (or second, depending on your calendric issues) day of the week named after it: Monday. |
== Conservapedia's discussion == | == Conservapedia's discussion == | ||
Revision as of 19:03, 3 October 2008
“The Moon belongs to America, and anxiously awaits the arrival of her astro-men.”
“One of these days, Alice... bang! Zoom! Straight to the moon.”
~ An early pioneer of spaceflight, explaining his ambitious dream
The Moon: Proof of Creationism?
No.
The Moon has been a source of astronomical study for at least three millennia. To say that science has failed to explain key elements of lunar motion, geography, or composition, is to be willfully blind. Nonetheless, many creationists fabricate "errors" in scientific studies of the Moon, and suggest that, since science has failed, the only alternative is creationism. This is gap-filling with God to an absurd degree. Assuming, for once, that science could not explain the Moon, this does not imply that the only explanation is God. Science evolves. Not everything is known now, nor should science be forced to prove the universe to disprove creationism. The standard for evaluating creationist claims about scientific disciplines is the same that applies to all scientific theories: does the claim match the evidence? Regarding creationism, the answer is a resounding, "no!"
Arguments for a Recent Creation, Based on the MoonThis should be fun. These all come from - unless specifically mentioned - Conservapedia's "article" on the Moon. |
The TruthLet it set you free. |
Size of its DiscThe Moon appears to have the same size as the Sun when viewed from Earth. This creates a unique symmetry and phenomenal solar eclipses. The odds of this occurring by chance are nearly zero. |
Size of its discAs the Moon is receding from the earth, it was inevitable that at some point it would reach the distance at which the moon was the same apparent size as the Sun when viewed from the earth. |
Rate of RecessionThe Moon currently recedes from the Earth at a rate of 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) per year[1], and is believed by mainstream scientists to be 4.6 billion years old [2]. |
Rate of Recession
|
Origin TheoriesAtheistic theories of the origin of the Moon, widely taught for decades despite lacking the falsifiability requirement of science (see Philosophy of science), have been proven false.[4] Lacking any other atheistic alternatives, some scientists assert that the Moon originated from a collision early in Earth's history which created an orbiting ring of debris from the iron-poor surface of the planet which eventually coalesced into the moon.[5] This theory, however, is contrary to key observations of the Moon, such as the relatively low levels of iron in the Moon's crust. Additional tests fail to support the atheistic theory.[6] |
Origin TheoriesFirst, let's note the characterization error in the left column. The author (Conservative) says that any non-creation explanation of the moon's origin is "atheistic." Please note that, according to this definition (anything that goes against special 6000-year ago creation is atheistic), these branches of science are all atheistic. Folks, that's most of them.[7] Now, onto the sources. The author hopes to prove the moon's special creation by demonstrating that the predominant scientific theory - the giant impact model[8] - is both unfalsifiable, and false. Let's take it piece by piece. First, is the "giant impact hypothesis" untestable? The author's own reference - a NASA document, cited here - says, no. It notes that, as of the time of the source's writing, a great many tests seemed to falsify the giant impact theory - one of them taking issue with the elemental content of the moon, viz. Earth. So, theory is falsifiable... but so falsifiable, that it's false, based on problems in lunar elemental composition. However, the very next cite in Conservative's argument explains away the chemical differential.[9] In sum, his arguments would be interesting if his sources didn't cut against him. And, to paraphrase the same author, "additional quote mines support the theory."[10] Let's assume arguendo, though, that the "giant impact theory," and indeed all other scientific theories to date, actually fail to explain the origin of the moon. The author seems to do just this, and closes by stating that, therefore, the moon must be specially created. This is a God of the Gaps argument: "if we can't explain it now, it means God Himself did it." Errr... no. After all, if we're going to invoke falsifiability, let's invoke it consistently. It's possible that there are good arguments against the giant impact model, and other scientific explanations of the moon's origin. However, the argument to the left is not one of them! |
Uniqueness Implies DesignThe Moon appears to have the same size as the Sun when viewed from Earth. This creates a unique symmetry and phenomenal solar eclipses. The odds of this occurring by chance are nearly zero. |
No it Doesn't!This is an argument from awe, or an argument from wonder, of the worst kind. Frankly, we should expect better of six years. The fact that something is impressive, or remarkably coincidental, does not defeat a methodological, natural explanation. This is the exact same argument used to suggest that the pyramids were built by aliens (they're so amazing!), and it applies with no more force here. Mere natural coincidence does not imply design by a Creator. As much as that romantic notion has formed a foundation for poetry and expression, it has no scientific relevance. This failure to recognize the boundaries between science and fiction is one of the key failings of creationism. |
Rotation and RevolutionThe Moon presents the same side to Earth at all times. That means that the rotation of the Earth offsets the separate effects of the revolution of the Moon. Physical explanations rely on tidal locking, asserting that tidal forces on Earth caused a bulge on the Moon, thereby creating a drag on the rotation of the Moon until its same face always presents to the Earth.[11] In fact, current tidal forces exerted by the Earth on the Moon cannot account fully for its bulge or egg shape.[12] |
Rotation and Revolution
|
Giant Impact + Moon Composition(ed. note: from another article). This...theory fail lacks testability and falsifiability, which are essential aspects of science as explained by Karl Popper. Scientists did find that none of three proposed tests are "supportive of the Giant Impact model."[13] Another article noted that the Moon is lacking in siderophilic elements (Au, Co, Fe, Ir, Mn, Mo, Ni, Os, Pd, Pt, Re, Rh, Ru) found on Earth, and this indicates that the Moon was not formed by materials broken off of Earth, thereby falsifying the theory.[14] A third study found that "the bulk composition of the Moon differs significantly from that of the terrestrial mantle" and that "[t]he high bulk FeO content of the Moon rules out the derivation of the proto-lunar material from any but a small fraction of the terrestrial mantle."[15] Nearly two decades after the Giant-Impact Model was embraced at the Hawaii convention, Scientific American observed that:[16]
Scientific American concluded:[17]
|
Giant Impact + Moon CompositionAs the CP article itself admits, the Giant Impact model is far from "untestable", and the presence of criticism of it shows that it's apparently not as unfalsifiable as claimed. Let's start with the nice quotemine that kicks off the section: "None of these is supportive of the Giant Impact model, but neither do they disprove it." (Same source as CP, emphasis mine) Regarding bulk composition, it has been pointed out that the impactor also contributed a large share of the base material that formed the Moon, so its bulk composition can be expected to be different than that of the terrestrial mantle. This led to the problem of the lack of siderophilic elements that should be present in such a case. And lastly, Scientific American. Another case of selectively quoting only the apparent problems without paying attention to the suggested solutions. Yes, the calculations do rely on many factors (making the calculations not exactly trivial), and it's possible to end up at required masses that are too low or too high. However:
What is true that the Giant Impact model has been criticized and that it still needs to explain certain things. However, it's still far too early to declare it to be disproven because of this, and it's certainly false to claim that there is "no direct evidence for this theory". |
Moon Landing Hoax
Please see the main article, Moon landing hoax.
American astronauts landed on the Moon in 1969, took pictures, left behind a plaque, and came back home. Deal with it.
Commemoration
The Moon, as the second most hallowed object in the sky, is honored by having first (or second, depending on your calendric issues) day of the week named after it: Monday.
Conservapedia's discussion
For real lulz read Conservapædia's talk page: it's a lulu from start to finish.
See Also
Footnotes
- ↑ NASA Measuring the Moon's Distance, LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994.
- ↑ NASA, Apollo Expeditions to the Moon, Chapter 15.2.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Sarfati, Jonathan, The moon: the light that rules the night, Creation 20(4):36–39, September 1998.
- ↑ Planetary Science Institute: The Origin of the Moon
- ↑ http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2198
- ↑ J. H. Jones: Tests of the Giant Impact Hypothesis
- ↑ The author asks that you forgive him for using the Schlafly-popularized "folks."
- ↑ The theory is exactly what it sounds like.
- ↑ See!?
- ↑ Again!
- ↑ The same theory suggested that the planet Mercury had a similar locked rotation due to gravitational forces from the sun, such that the same side of Mercury always faces the sun. In fact, that is false. Mercury's tidal locking is incomplete and it does not always present the same face to the sun.
- ↑ http://physics.fortlewis.edu/Astronomy/astronomy%20today/CHAISSON/AT308/HTML/AT30803.HTM
- ↑ http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/4045.pdf
- ↑ http://www.ias.ac.in/jessci/dec2005/ilc-3.pdf
- ↑ http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc97/pdf/1070.PDF
- ↑ http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=5&articleID=000A90B0-C919-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21
- ↑ Id.