http://www.reasons.org/articles/increas ... l-disquiet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Pretty good read, me thinks.
too many coincidences to explain our moon?
Forum rules
1) This is a Christian site, respect our beliefs and we will respect yours.
2) This is a family friendly site, no swearing or posting offensive links, pictures, or signatures.
3) Please be respectful of others.
4) Trolls are not welcome and will be dealt with accordingly.
5) No racial comments, jokes or images
6) If you see a dead thread over 6 months old, let it rest in peace
7) No Duplicate posts
1) This is a Christian site, respect our beliefs and we will respect yours.
2) This is a family friendly site, no swearing or posting offensive links, pictures, or signatures.
3) Please be respectful of others.
4) Trolls are not welcome and will be dealt with accordingly.
5) No racial comments, jokes or images
6) If you see a dead thread over 6 months old, let it rest in peace
7) No Duplicate posts
-
ccgr
- Site Admin
- Posts: 38668
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 12:00 am
- Are you human?: Yes!
- Location: IL
- Contact:
-
ArchAngel
- CCGR addict
- Posts: 3539
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
I started reading this thinking it was from reason.org but as I started going through it, things stopped adding up. I looked back up and lo and behold, it was reasons.org, for Reasons to Believe. It then made sense.
I fail to see the issue with the "probability" of a moon, nor am I convinced of it's necessity for life. In a galaxy of billion stars, of the billion galaxies in the observable universe, the fact that planet bodies have collisions that formed an orbiting body during the turbulent accretion stage in the early solar system history doesn't seem so implausible.
I'm not saying we have the theory of our moon's origins locked down, but any gaps in our knowledge isn't suddenly proof of God. Ignorance is not a proof of anything, as well as something creationists consistently fail to accomplish: there hasn't been any substantiation on the assertion that an intelligent, supernatural being is needed or even exists.
I fail to see the issue with the "probability" of a moon, nor am I convinced of it's necessity for life. In a galaxy of billion stars, of the billion galaxies in the observable universe, the fact that planet bodies have collisions that formed an orbiting body during the turbulent accretion stage in the early solar system history doesn't seem so implausible.
I'm not saying we have the theory of our moon's origins locked down, but any gaps in our knowledge isn't suddenly proof of God. Ignorance is not a proof of anything, as well as something creationists consistently fail to accomplish: there hasn't been any substantiation on the assertion that an intelligent, supernatural being is needed or even exists.