Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Findings Cast Doubt On Moon Origins

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the moon-mystery dept.

Moon 233

sciencehabit writes "A new analysis of isotopes found in lunar minerals challenges the prevailing view of how Earth's nearest neighbor formed. Geochemists looked at titanium isotopes in 24 separate samples of lunar rock and soil, and found that the moon's proportion was effectively the same as Earth's and different from elsewhere in the solar system. This contradicts the so-called Giant Impact Hypothesis, which posits that Earth collided with a hypothetical, Mars-sized planet called Theia early in its existence, and the resulting smash-up produced a disc of magma orbiting our planet that later coalesced to form the moon."

cancel ×

233 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

last post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39475957)

dongs

In other words... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39475967)

That's no moon!

Re:In other words... (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476473)

That's no moon!

What, no goatse link either?

Re:In other words... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476793)

That's no moon!

Oh, it's a moon alright, but it's rented. Payments are terrible, too. Don't think I can keep them up much longer. Gonna be a dark sky when it gets repo'd.

Re:In other words... (4, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476941)

Pink Floyd owns the rights to the Dark Side of the Moon.

Oblig. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39475973)

That's no moon.

Re:Oblig. (0)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476521)

That's no moon.

You're right, it's really a Godwin [wikimedia.org] !

Where is it ? (my keys) (5, Funny)

fluffythedestroyer (2586259) | more than 2 years ago | (#39475983)

We have the technology to find and look very deep or far where isotopes are or where the fartest solar system is. But yet, I can't find my damn keys in my house sometimes.

Re:Where is it ? (my keys) (5, Funny)

stoofa (524247) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476179)

That's because you look for your keys with sight. 'Fartest' solar systems are detected with smell.

Re:Where is it ? (my keys) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39476399)

In space, nobody can hear you fart.

Re:Where is it ? (my keys) (5, Funny)

fleeped (1945926) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476533)

Obviously using the Smell-O-Scope

Re:Where is it ? (my keys) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39477183)

Can we please just skip straight to the Urrectum joke and call this thread dead?

Re:Where is it ? (my keys) (0)

fluffythedestroyer (2586259) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476765)

Oops, i meant farthest. Forgot the H. The difference can be insane if you make a typo with a single letter sometimes. lol

Re:Where is it ? (my keys) (5, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476389)

We have the technology to find and look very deep or far where isotopes are or where the fartest solar system is. But yet, I can't find my damn keys in my house sometimes.

If technology isn't solving your problem, you aren't using enough: Put an RFID tag on your key chain. While you are at it, you should tag the TV remote too.

Re:Where is it ? (my keys) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39476925)

If technology isn't solving your problem, you aren't using enough

I'm not sure if that was funny, insightful or if you are insane. I'll just vote 'Underrated'.

Re:Where is it ? (my keys) (3, Insightful)

holmedog (1130941) | more than 2 years ago | (#39477155)

I started to mod this insightful. Then, I thought "Wow, that's so cool I'm going to go actually buy that system and put chips in all my stuff". Then I did the research and realized it's $400 (source: http://www.dpl-surveillance-equipment.com/1000066086.html [dpl-survei...ipment.com] ) .

I'll just keep putting the keys on my nightstand and the remote on the end table.

Re:Where is it ? (my keys) (1)

schlachter (862210) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476809)

should have written....we have all these technologies....yet we still have physical keys?

Re:Where is it ? (my keys) (1)

Isaac-1 (233099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39477369)

Yeah, but do you really want an electronic padlock?

Re:Where is it ? (my keys) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39477703)

You just need to place RF-tags on your key chains and have a reader to ask each room what's in it. If you get response, you now it is in the room, somewhere! Now if only GPS tags were as cheap as RF-tags...

What are the implications? (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39476017)

So, if it wasn't a big impact, what was it? What's the next best theory?

Re:What are the implications? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39476037)

Anthropogenic global warming.

Re:What are the implications? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39476063)

So, if it wasn't a big impact, what was it? What's the next best theory?

I believe the current frontrunner is the "liberal myth" hypothesis.

Re:What are the implications? (5, Informative)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476425)

So, if it wasn't a big impact, what was it? What's the next best theory?

Well, according to TFA:
"One possibility is that a glancing blow from a passing body left Earth spinning so rapidly that it threw some of itself off into space like a shot put, forming the disk that coalesced into the moon. This would explain why the moon seems to be made entirely of Earth material. But there are problems with this model, too, such as the difficulty of explaining where all the extra angular momentum went after the moon formed, and the researchers aren't claiming to have refuted the giant impact hypothesis."

Re:What are the implications? (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | more than 2 years ago | (#39477079)

So basically the prevailing theory before the big impact theory?

Re:What are the implications? (5, Interesting)

VernonNemitz (581327) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476673)

The giant impact scenario can still make sense. All we need to do is assume both the Earth and the other object formed in the same zone (distance from sun). That's the most critical thing, since we can expect any one zone, all around the sun, to be fairly consistent in its isotopic composition. So, each gathered up lots of debris while forming, and their collision constituted one of the last events that made the Earth a planet (per modern definition: a planet has to clear its zone of all large debris).

Re:What are the implications? (4, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476963)

We should demand to see its birth certificate.

Re:What are the implications? (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 2 years ago | (#39477151)

But if P != NP, how will we ever produce the certificate in time before the next ejection?

Invalid Sample (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39477585)

How can they test moon rocks when we all know that the moon landing was a hoax!

Earth looks at Moon, &says... (1)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476061)

"We are not brothers, hanger-on..."

['ruff for cartoon]

Re:Earth looks at Moon, &says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39476159)

What is this i dont even

Not a contradiction (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39476087)

It doesn't contradict it at all. The current version of the impactor theory pre-supposes that Theia was formed at Earth's L4 or L5 point. There, the fractional distillation effect in the solar nebula would give the same Ti isotope ratios as in Earth, since Theia would be orbiting at the same distance. Formation at L4 or L5 also gives a nicely low impact energy, agreeing with what is needed to form the moon.

Re:Not a contradiction (4, Informative)

Quaoar (614366) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476225)

This doesn't work. The fractional element abundances depend not only on the location in the protoplantery disk, but on the timescales of accretion, which depend on the mass of the object accreting. Thus, even if you formed Theia in L4/L5, the isotopic ratios should be different, as the two objects will have different masses.

Re:Not a contradiction (5, Informative)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476829)

The location of Theia's formation at 4 or L5 would be close enough to earth that the accretion would of the same material. Further if Theia were at L4 it would lead earth in the orbital path, 60 degrees ahead, and would tend to preferentially sweep the protoplanetary disk, before earth's mass rendered any advantage. Any differences in ratios would be small at the time of impact.

Bear in mind that anything at the the Lagrange points must necessarily be insignificantly small relative to the earth. As soon as it stops being so, the likelihood of it staying at the Lagrange point becomes nil. I remain unconvinced that a planet could form at L4 or L5 and become large enough such that any impact would eject a mass as large as the moon. Drift should occur long before it acquired enough mass. (Earths orbit is not circular, rather it is elliptical, and as such the Lagrange points are really unstable Lagrange "areas").

Disregarding my doubts, when a body formed at L4 or L5 does drift, and impact earth, that impact would scatter its content over the surface of the earth such that we would, after all these billions of years, be hard pressed to distinguish it from earth's original composition. Similarly, the moon would be composed of the same material sources, a combination of both Theia and Earth materials.

Any subtle differences in accretion would be completely masked by impact mixing.

However, the same could be said about any body impacting the earth. The likelihood of such a body remaining intact (bottling up any difference in isotopic ratios) is virtually nil, and both earth and moon are going to be covered with the same relative ratios in any method which postulates the moon being formed from ejecta from an earth impact.

At best this finding puts to rest the long discredited "captured moon" theory.

Re:Not a contradiction (5, Informative)

Quaoar (614366) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476947)

The problem is that the ratio of Earth's mantle to Theia's mantle matters in the combination, even if mixing is efficient. The Earth's mantle is fully convective, and around 6 times the mass of the impactor's mantle, which means that you have to really fine-tune the conditions to achieve the exact right mixture. A good analogy would be trying to mix milk and water in a glass such that the fluid that splashes out of the glass has the same fraction of milk to water as the fluid remaining in the glass. With the original Oxygen isotope constraint, 95%+ of the lunar mantle needed to originate from the Earth, which is in direct conflict with the giant impact simulations that have been performed (which find 80% coming from the *impactor*), even for iron-rich impactors that preferentially remove Earth's mantle. This new constraint, if I am reading the paper correctly, is even stronger than the Oxygen isotope constraint, being at the part per million level rather than the part per ten thousand level.

Re:Not a contradiction (5, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39477231)

The Earth's mantle is fully convective, and around 6 times the mass of the impactor's mantle,

Wait, what? Where did you get 6 times? And where did the impactor get a mantle? That number is sheer conjecture, and the existence of a mantle makes so sense until you have an impactor large enough to have a differentiated body. That hasn't been proven.

Moon's core is different from earth's [wikipedia.org] by our best guesses. But the surface accretion in the eons after any impact is going to accumulate the same combination of protoplanetary disk material and ejecta material.

We've barely scratches the surface of earth, let alone the moon. These isotope measurements are akin to determining the structure of a large building by examining a paint chip scraped off of each.

And using hind sight, doesn't ANY outcome appear to be the result of "fine tuning"? Isn't any such argument just another form of intelligent creation dogma?

Re:Not a contradiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39477001)

From the article: "Although the idea that Theia and the proto-Earth had identical compositions cannot be definitely ruled out, this idea seems to be contrived and requires special circumstances for an embryo to have the same titanium, oxygen, and tungsten isotopic compositions as a growing planet"

Re:Not a contradiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39477283)

Two peas in the same pod. Special circumstances? Not if both bodies were formed from the same disk.

Re:Not a contradiction (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39476857)

Since Theia can only start to form once the proto-Earth has a stable L4/L5, this locks the accretion timescales of the two objects. (Theia gets the totality of its material when Earth gets the bulk of its material.)

An alternate hypothesis. (0)

idbeholda (2405958) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476089)

The moon was put here by extra terrestrials for the sole purpose of spying on our corn fields.

Re:An alternate hypothesis. (2, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476117)

The Moon is a giant alien battleship [wikipedia.org] .

Re:An alternate hypothesis. (1)

mattdm (1931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476205)

Spoiler alert! Sheesh!

Re:An alternate hypothesis. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39476223)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gurren_Lagann_mecha#Super_Galaxy_Dai-Gurren

Re:An alternate hypothesis. (5, Funny)

elgeeko.com (2472782) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476591)

That's the silliest thing I've ever read. Anyone with half a mind knows it wasn't built by Aliens, it was built by a previously advanced civilization on Earth that now controls our governments from the safety of their Lunar Habitat. Geesh, get an education or at least watch the History Channel!

Re:An alternate hypothesis. (1)

idbeholda (2405958) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476609)

FFS, someone mod this parent up.

Huh? (3, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476099)

"Geochemists looked at titanium isotopes in 24 separate samples of lunar rock and soil, and found that the moon's proportion was effectively the same as Earth's and different from elsewhere in the solar system"

and

" This contradicts the so-called Giant Impact Hypothesis, which posits that Earth collided with a hypothetical, Mars-sized planet called Theia early in its existence, and the resulting smash-up produced a disc of magma orbiting our planet that later coalesced to form the moon."

SO discovering that the Moon's and Earths isotopes match means it could NOT have formed from a splash of magma from the earth?

This whole thing contradicts it's self. How do they know that the other body was not a twin of the earth and formed from the same disc of dust and debris? do they have samples of this other planet?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39476149)

I agree. Even if "Theia" was of different composition, wouldn't the collision of the two (and subsequent combination of the two) move the compounds from "Theia" into both the Earth and Moon?

Re:Huh? (3)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476161)

You could RTFA instead of calling bullshit based on your understanding of the summary, but that would be work. The problem is that it's highly unlikely that in such a scenario, any less than 40% of the moon would be made up of magma from Theia.

Re:Huh? (0)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476915)

And that 40% magma would be where? On the surface of the moon waiting to be picked up by astronauts?

Several hundred billion years of both earth and moon sweeping the SAME disk in space would cause the surface of both to be largely the same.

Wake me when there are core samples from several hundred miles deep of both bodies. Until then, any isotope studies are studying accretion debris.

Re:Huh? (2)

Sarius64 (880298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39477051)

Several hundred billion years, eh? That many?

Re:Huh? (0)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39477287)

I did RTFA. Maybe you should before acting like and asshole.

Re:Huh? (1)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476167)

They're asserting that 40% of the Moon's mass must have come from the impactor, and thus would have a different isotope balance.

Re:Huh? (3, Insightful)

demonbug (309515) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476403)

They're asserting that 40% of the Moon's mass must have come from the impactor, and thus would have a different isotope balance.

That's clear, but why would the impactor necessarily have a significantly different isotopic ratio than the Earth? Yes it theoretically had a significantly different mass, but the distance from the sun was similar. How much understanding do we have of the variation in these isotopes on other planetary bodies? We have samples from what, the Earth, the Moon, and probably asteroids (very small mass so not too surprising if their isotope ratio is very different)? Possibly Mars? That doesn't seem like a whole lot of data to base models of isotope variation on, so it seems like a weak argument to say that Theia should have had a substantially different isotopic ratio for oxygen and titanium than the Earth. It would be nice if this was discussed in the article, but it isn't (and the link to the original journal article is broken so I can't check for myself).

Re:Huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39476477)

I put 38 oz of cola Slurpee and 26 oz of cherry Slurpee in a 64 oz cup.
After 24 sips, I determined that the contents of the cup was entirely cola Slurpee.

Re:Huh? (2)

Soralin (2437154) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476569)

Wouldn't a significant percentage of the mass of the surface of the Earth also have come from the impactor, and therefore also have had it's isotope balance altered in the same way?

Re:Huh? (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476873)

They're asserting that 40% of the Moon's mass must have come from the impactor, and thus would have a different isotope balance.

Unless the same percentage of the Earth's mass came from the impactor as that of the moon.

Re:Huh? (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476927)

Their assertion is highly suspect at best.

Re:Huh? (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476229)

SO discovering that the Moon's and Earths isotopes match means it could NOT have formed from a splash of magma from the earth?

No, it means that it probably could not have formed from a splash of magma that came mostly from Theia, which would be the case under the Giant Impact Hypothesis.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39476297)

It's like testing Joffrey's DNA and finding that it's almost identical to Cersei's.

Re:Huh? (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476651)

IANAAP, but wouldn't some of the isotopes of the impacting rock show up in the Moon's assay, which would give the geochemists the opinion of the Impact Theory being the correct one?

Good conclusion bad logic (or writing) (5, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476105)

Conclusion sounds good, written logic is horrible.

found that the moon's proportion was effectively the same as Earth's

This contradicts the so-called Giant Impact Hypothesis, which posits that Earth collided with a hypothetical, Mars-sized planet called Theia early in its existence, and the resulting smash-up produced a disc of magma orbiting our planet that later coalesced to form the moon.

Does not explain why that doesn't work. The summary makes it sound very likely that something "smooshed off" the earth and became the moon, because both have the same ratios. Also does a poor job of explaining the more likely alternative explanation, by not discussing it at all. Fail.

I think part of the fail is assuming:

different from elsewhere in the solar system

That means we've sampled everything in the entire solar system both now and infinitely in the past? ha ha I think not.

Re:Good conclusion bad logic (or writing) (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39476493)

The idea, I think, is that Theia would have been completely disrupted, with portions of it perhaps sinking to the core of the Earth and the remainder re-accreting (with significant parts of the original Earth) in orbit to form the moon. So I think that 'fail' is mis-directed...

Re:Good conclusion bad logic (or writing) (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476503)

They've sampled a big number of meteorites, from several parts of the Solar System. Also, they don't need to sample them over time because they know how isotopes change, and thus only need a snapshot.

The conclusion seems quite well fundamented.

Occam's Razor (3, Interesting)

Iniamyen (2440798) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476113)

Is there evidence to suggest that the simplest explanation (accretion disk formed the earth and the moon at roughly the same time, along with all the other rocky planets) is not the correct one? I honestly can't remember, it would be nice for someone more knowledgeable than I to set me straight. We seem to be obsessed with "fantastic" explanations, maybe because we are trying to get folks interested in science. The simple explanation is still pretty friggin' interesting to me.

Re:Occam's Razor (2)

phrostie (121428) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476195)

Agreed but it's not as likely to get grant money or published

Re:Occam's Razor (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39476207)

That's fine and everything, but Occam's Razor? What does toiletries have to do with the Moon?

What next? According to Norelco's shaver, the Moon was formed by an ancient race with nuclear weapons.

Or, according to Remington's shaver, the Moon was captured but according to Bic's Razor, the Moon is made out of fine French Cheese.

Re:Occam's Razor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39476391)

...not sure if trolling or incredibly stupid.....

Re:Occam's Razor (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476617)

I recommend you do more than pick your ass... learn, LEARN.

Re:Occam's Razor (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39477147)

Every time I try to learn something, I find out there are 300+ idiots on slashdot telling me that everyone has known that's wrong for the last 200 years, that I believe that the Earth was made after Moses freed the children of Israel, that I'm responsible for sunspots, the absence of flying cars, and the necessity of the Bill Maher show, and that if I just tuned in to Richard Dawkin's "Shit I Pulled out of My Asshole While I Was Writing Whis", I would know that battery life is increased by sacrificing unborn children and having sex with consenting transexual toddlers -- for every person who tells me that whatever I'm researching is a feasible theory.

Perhaps when the scientific community embraces scientific rigour, rather than attempting to saddle it for political self-justification, learning will be fun again.

Re:Occam's Razor (5, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476543)

Is there evidence to suggest that the simplest explanation (accretion disk formed the earth and the moon at roughly the same time, along with all the other rocky planets) is not the correct one?

Computer simulations have shown that the accretion disk theory is unlikely. The moon is HUGE. Compared to the size of the mother planet, it is by far the biggest in the solar system. It is also really far from the earth, nearly 400,000km. By comparison, the distance from Mars to Phobos is less than 10,000km. Most of the mass in an accretion disk should have fallen to earth, with a small amount forming a few very small moons, orbiting closely.

Re:Occam's Razor (0)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#39477435)

Charon is the largest "moon" compared to its "planet" Pluto.

Re:Occam's Razor (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476549)

As I understand it, the mass, composition, and age of the moon are all wrong for that that theory (which was the prevailing hypothesis when I was young).

Wikipedia says [wikipedia.org] : "the co-formation of the Earth and the Moon together in the primordial accretion disk [...] does not explain the depletion of metallic iron in the Moon." It also doesn't explain the 40 million years or so difference in age betwen the Earth and the Moon.

Re:Occam's Razor (2)

samkass (174571) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476659)

As I understand it, the mass, composition, and age of the moon are all wrong for that that theory (which was the prevailing hypothesis when I was young).

I remember having a poster when I was young (in the 70's) that showed how the moon formed by a lopsided Earth wobbling off a big glop of moon and having it slowly cool and spiral outward.

Re:Occam's Razor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39477061)

Hmmm... that must have been some poster. Did it show many pictures indicating? Perhaps it was a huge flippage poster?

Re:Occam's Razor (1)

Cytotoxic (245301) | more than 2 years ago | (#39477453)

I had the same (or similar) poster from National Geographic. It showed the three possible origins of the moon on one side and a highly detailed map of the moon on the other. Nice map.

FWIW- the three possible origins of the moon were: Budding from angular momentum, co-formation in the same location and capture of a rogue planetessimal from elsewhere in the solar system. If I recall correctly, budding and capture were considered long-shot ideas. Interesting that the currently prevailing theory was not one of the 3 possible methods of formation...

Re:Occam's Razor (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476581)

If they both formed from the same accreation disk, the composition of the Earth and the Moon would be different, not similar.

Re:Occam's Razor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39476905)

The main reason that it (the simplest explanation) is not believed to be true is the difficulty of giving the moon 71% of the total angular momentum in the system. The earth which contains almost 98% of the total mass of the system has 30% of the angular momentum.

Re:Occam's Razor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39477247)

I have heard from a highly refutable source that Occam once said "...I simply shave with my razor..." and things just got all twisted and blown out of proportion.

I am completely uninformed... but... (1, Interesting)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476143)

I don't see how this contradicts anything. If a mars sized body impacted the earth, I doubt there was much that wasn't rendered into magma and mixed together.

The moon is just a set made in Hollywood. (1)

cornicefire (610241) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476177)

That's what I read on the Internet.

Re:The moon is just a set made in Hollywood. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39476599)

That's devilry. The moon was made for the Earth after God said, "'It is not good that the Earth should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him."; and he made other planets, asteroids, comets, and stars; as the Earth slumbered God took a some rock and soil from him and made the Moon.

Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39476263)

This is just too awesome man!

Genesis 1:16 (5, Funny)

Kojow777 (929199) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476287)

It's times like this that I'm happy to be a creationist.

Re:Genesis 1:16 (0)

Sean_Inconsequential (1883900) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476375)

Yes, because the Moon emits its own, self-generated light (of course I do understand that you are not being serious).

Re:Genesis 1:16 (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39476579)

Nothing in the verse that he mentioned actually implies that the moon is its own source of light. It is simply referred to as a luminous body. Which is is, when it's being illuminated by the sun.

Re:Genesis 1:16 (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476677)

everything is illuminated by the sun... by that nature, every asteroid, satellite, and debris field is luminous.

It's also eerily disturbing that we're talking about astronomical logic from a bible verse lol

Re:Genesis 1:16 (1, Informative)

Empiric (675968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476733)

Wake me when the verse widens the scope it's addressing to "lesser, lesser lights".

For the record, I'm an Old Earth Creationist (OEC), not a Young Earth Creationist (YEC).

Some arguments against "creationism" are just too lame to not address, though.

Re:Genesis 1:16 (1)

Empiric (675968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476665)

Yes, because the bible says it does.

Oh wait, it doesn't.

But, you should probably inform these guys they are no longer allowed to call their products "lights"...

http://commercial.veluxusa.com/commercial/products/ [veluxusa.com]

Bonus points: What percentage of light from the original source, as opposed to reflected light, do you see from a standard frosted light bulb?

Re:Genesis 1:16 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39477059)

42?

Re:Genesis 1:16 (0)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476455)

Except the Bible does not say HOW the two lights were made. If God did make everything, why wouldn't he make the Earth and the Moon out of the same thing?

Re:Genesis 1:16 (1)

Kojow777 (929199) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476585)

It's a question of albedo.

Headline vs. Article (5, Informative)

Sean_Inconsequential (1883900) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476331)

From the article: "[...]and the researchers aren't claiming to have refuted the giant impact hypothesis."

This is Real Science (4, Insightful)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476349)

You know how you can tell astronomy is a real science? The people doing it are willing to look at new evidence... even if it casts doubt on their current beliefs.

  • They do not insist that the "science is all settled".
  • They do not belittle those who come up with hypothesis or evidence that contradicts their current views. (notice that they didn't call this new researcher a "Denier")
  • They do not take polls amongst themselves and form a concensus, and then insist they're right on the strength of the fact that they have formed a concensus.

If you see people in a field of "science" doing any of the above, it's not science but something else entirely.

Re:This is Real Science (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39476681)

Anyone who's old enough to remember the first moon landing knows that. Our notions of how the solar system was formed, and in particular, how the moon was formed, have undergone drastic modification as physical evidence started coming in. When I was young, the accreted-from-the-same-cloud theory was still the prevailing one. My parents may well remember the Mars-has-canals theory.

Findings Cast Doubt on Moon Landings (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39476611)

They missed the obvious explanation: namely that the "24 separate samples of lunar rock and soil" are actually "24 separate samples of earth rock and soil", much like the petrified wood fiasco [msn.com]

The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (4, Funny)

Ultra64 (318705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39477015)

It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)

Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.

Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.

Re:The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (1)

squidflakes (905524) | more than 2 years ago | (#39477365)

I like your theory and would like to subscribe to your news letter. One thing bothers me though, where is George Soros in all of this? Did... oh god, did he fund this entire project?

moon is only 6 thousand years old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39477255)

The moon is only 6 thousand years old. And Yahweh(God) created it. The Bible is true and scientifically accurate.

“For this they are willingly ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgement and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness: but is long suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. II Peter 3:5-9

Many people don't want the Bible to be true because that means there is Someone to be accountable to and these people want to live their lives however they please.

“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith... I Timothy 6:20-21

www.truthsjourney.com

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>