What If There Were No Moon?

Let's start by considering that it could be a deliberate act by a life form on Earth. Here's some initial thinking.

The mass is out there, so let's first consider disintegrating the Moon and spreading it out a bit, while the bits remain in orbit at the same sort of radius. This would have a significant effect on oceanic tides and the activities of life forms that depend on moonlight and those tides. For starters, the food chain would go out-of-gear, affecting all life forms and the content of the atmosphere. Many technologies would disfunction; for example, global shipping would be severly disrupted causing unsustainable resource limitations and affecting all economies. Over time the bits would accrete together again by their own gravity, causing further changes. The energy of collision would increase the moon's temperature, which may affect Earth's temperature with associated climatic effects, disrupting the activities of all life forms.

Next step - spray the bits in various directions. Ouch - one fair-sized lump colliding with earth would have cataclysmic effects causing the extinction of many species, as other lumps have done in the past. Earth's rotation would be affected, collision or not, causing unprecedented sudden changes to ecosystems reliant on a 24h solar day.

Next step - remove all the bits from orbit and send them on their way. Such an act would require a large amount of energy, depleting that in the Moon/Earth system, causing extensive changes to the rotation period and the year length. The orbital radius to the Sun would change, causing severe changes to surface temperatures and possibly the extinction of all life forms as a result.

Of course, were any of that to happen by collision with another planet-sized spheroid instead, the incoming mass would probably have done this before the Moon leaves orbit as a result of the collision.

Somewhere near?

So, let's look after the old girl instead. She is a rather beautiful heavenly body.

If the moon never existed?

1 The orbit of earth may have been closer to the sun and possibly too close for comfort.

2 Boring tides.

3 Nothing to sing about.

What would happen if a moon sized chunk of ice approaches the earth in an "friendly" trajectory? - (minimum chance of collision)

I did not understand the celestial mechanics involved in your first remark that if the Moon had not been there the Earth's orbit would have been different. I don't think mass of the planet has anything to do with the orbit around the Sun. I think the main difference with and without the Moon would be the tides, and their braking action on the planet's rotation. Without the Moon our day would have been much shorter.

Tides are said to have a crucial part in the distribution of early self-replicating compounds, in the early soup-seas, some 3 to 4 billions years ago. Just a note.

Self-replicating compounds??!!! What????

Protein molecules and simple element arrangements (sounds like viruses).

Yes, without the tides, it's certain that life would have evolved differently - think of all the species who have cycles based on the flow of the tides.

And the earth itself would be quite different, since it wouldn't have experienced the collision with the Mars-sized object that created the moon.

It's also probable that a certain percentage of the objects that have hit the moon would have hit the earth instead, perhaps causing more mass extinctions than we already had.

Protein molecules from where???

Water buffalo,

Simple amino acids, the building blocks of proteins have been produced in labs for many decades. They exist in the carbonaceous chondrite class of meteorites that have struck the earth over eons. You are correct in that we do not yet know the exact mechanism by which they made the "miraculous" jump to "living" matter, but we now know many of the parts to that puzzle, and the feeling among scientists now is that life in some form is not at all limited to our planet and appears to be a natural consequence in our universe, given favorable conditions and enough time.

Your implication (based in part on your byline) is that God waved a magic wand and "poof" there was life. Understanding how life came to be is completely separate from a belief in a "Creator", and has no more bearing on the existence of God than understanding how the planets move about the sun.

Without going into my own beliefs, I will say that learning and understanding physical "laws", and what constitutes living matter and its origin is a religious experience for many in that learning and "understanding" God's work is, for believers a method of getting to better appreciate his majesty rather than evidence that he had no part in it.

Faith and science need not conflict, except in those with closed minds on either side that make it so.

Regards, Greg

Greg,

Show me some fossil examples Greg. Please don't refer to me as "closed minded". Science and the Bible do not conflict at all. As I stated earlier, they actually compliment each other by revealing both are correct. Those who take the evolution route of science can never explain the orgin of life. There are no picking and choosing of parts to accept. Give me one example of a scientific finding that cannot be supported by the Bible, and spare me the flawed radiometric dating methods.

Explain to me how an evolutionist believes life started using the simplest means available. Explain how my science is deeply flawed.

You obviously don't know much about the historical evidence in the Bible, and what has been discovered. The Bible, religious in nature, is a historical record that has been proven to be very accurate by science.

Dan

Scientific evolution exists only in the mind of those who believe it. Even Darwin wrote in his book that this "theory" may not at all make sense. I am very aware of the fine fictional evolution books that are available. The problem I have is that they don't answer the obvious questions about the origin of life. If these "real scientists" have all this "real scientific data", then why aren't they able to create life out of nothing in these multi-million dollar labs they use?

People that believe in evolution simply don't want to accept that there is a Creator, because the Creator demands respect. One major difference between Creationists and Evolutionists is that the Creationist beliefs are constant and answer new findings with relative ease. If new findings do not fit the Evolution theory, the theory is altered to fit the findings. Throw a few more millions years into the equation and it works!

I'm torn between totally ignoring you and setting about refuting each of your claims one by one - which I know is a total waste of time. So, I'll just correct a few of your "facts" in case some poor innocents pass by and think there's anything to them.

1) The rubbish about population growth. Actual population growth varies from 0.1 to 3% in historic times, although in some countries it's actually currently negative. This is a modern phenomena, dependent on such life enhancing technologies as agriculture, which is only a few thousand years old. Your statistics also leave out such things as plagues and natural disasters, such the the eruption of Mount Toba 74,000 years ago which very nearly eliminated the human race, and all those nasty ice ages.

2) Your misstatement about full skeletal fossils has already been pointed out. The reason that there aren't "millions and millions" of human fossils is because a) fossilization is a very rare occurrence (less than 1:1,000,000), and b) there have only been "millions and millions" of humans in the relatively recent era (last 10,0000 years) , and as everyone who's not a creationist knows, it takes > 10,000 years to create a fossil.

3) The bunk about humans having written for only the past 6000 years: Humans were painting in caves 35,000 years ago. (We can date their paintings because they are now encased in carbonate minerals, and we know how long it takes those minerals to form. )

4) Fossil gaps - sure there are plenty. Only in a creationist past where everything is buried under a few meters of alluvial mud would we expect to find a perfect, pristine fossil record. The real earth has been erupting, eroding, depositing, buckling, subsiding, flooding, freezing and thawing for 5 billion years. It's a wonder that we have as many fossils as we do.

There is no spiritual disconnect between God and evolution. People who use the Bible as an excuse to remain ignorant of the wonder of God's creation do themselves and God a terrible disservice. I consider it the worst kind of blasphemy. That's not a scientific fact of course, just my opinion.

1) No rubbish. Growth does vary, but there is no evolution explanation. Vary the growth rate, and there has to be many times more people on the planet than there is. You discount the very nature of evolution by not allowing for assumptions to be made. What is interesting is that if you take a growth rate of 0.45% (well in line with your range) with today's population, you end up with 8 people about 4500yrs ago. Interesting that the Biblical account of the Flood occurred ~4500yrs ago with 8 survivors.

2) So, fossils are rare? How can they be dated so accurately? Why are they rare?

3) Spare me the carbon dating! We all know there are too many assumptions there.

4) Plenty of gaps for sure, but if the planet is as old as you say, there should be more.

Here's one for you:

Both sides agree that oil is made from decaying matter, typically plants and animals. Why do you suppose that oil isn't found everywhere? Did you know that oil can be made in a matter of minutes using dead animal materials? We have all thought that oil takes "millions and millions" years to create. The creationist explanation is that when the flood waters receeded, all the materials (dead animals & plantlife) followed into these caverns in a funnel effect. Is that reasonable or not? The Bible talks about water being unleashed from under gound during the flood. Kind of interesting that the folks that wrote the Bible had no "scientific" data to show such waters existed.

Here's another one:

The Grand Canyon is said to be created over millions of millions of years of water flow. Where is the delta? Where is all the eroded soil? Mt. St. Helens created a small-scale Canyon that resembled the Grand Canyon. Problem is that is was created in a much shorter period of time (i.e. weeks). Geologists that were not familiar with the scene estimated it would have taken thousands, if not millions of years to create.

Keep an open mind my friend!

OK last time.

1) Growth does vary, but there is no evolution explanation. What does that mean? We're talking about population growth in a stable species - evolution has nothing to do with it.

2) I'd refer you to a good book, but I know you won't read it.

3) I wasn't referring to carbon dating, but to the geological process of calcite (I said carbonate, but that was my bad) deposition - where stalactites come from. But, the only assumption in carbon dating is that the laws of physics are constant through time.

4) There are lots more, and we find 1000's more every year - maybe after we've excavated every square inch of the earth we'll find them.Yes, we can make oil. We can also make diamonds. We also can see from the evidence in the real world that there it takes millions of years.

The Grand Canyon has no delta - ??? Yes, not anymore since we dammed up the Colorado River, but 100 years ago the Colorado river delta between Baja California and Sonora provided a rich estuarine marshland to a whole ecosystem. It's mostly gone now since the river's been reduced to a trickle. And I don't know which geologists can't tell the difference between a pile of ash and layers of rock, but I'm betting they didn't get an "A" in geology.

I'm done.

But, the only assumption in carbon dating is that the laws of physics are constant through time

VERY VERY big assumption since there is plenty of evidence that the pre-Flood world had a very different atmosphere that would really impact this. Air pockets inside amber are said to have higher levels of oxygen than today.

And I don't know which geologists can't tell the difference between a pile of ash and layers of rock

This was in reference to the water rushing through Toutle River. Sediment layer deposits resemble those in the Grand Caynon. This whole point was to contend that perhaps the Grand Canyon wasn't made in the manner we think it was.....over millions and millions of years.

One more before I go......do you fellows know how old the oldest living tree in the world has been ring-dated to? ~4500 yrs........there is that number AGAIN! Do you really think this is a coincidence?

Scientists have traced tree rings back 8000 years. And ice cores a few hundred thousand years. So much for this argument.

Try some more reading on your tree data, and you will find that the evidence was very questionable. So questionable that the Guinness book of records removed it.

Here is something interesting about the ice cores:

A milestone in deep ice drilling occurred on Thursday, 17 July 2003.¹ The deepest ice core in the Northern Hemisphere hit bedrock on the Greenland Ice Sheet at a depth of almost two miles. The new core was drilled by the North Greenland Ice Core Project (NorthGRIP, or NGRIP for short), which took seven years to drill, after overcoming many problems.² The ice core is located 203 miles from the highest point on the ice sheet, on a north–north-west trending ice ridge. European glaciologists had drilled the high point to bedrock back in the early 1990s. Their ice core was called GRIP. American scientists had drilled another hole to bedrock at the same time, 18 miles to the west of GRIP, called GISP2.³

The dating of NorthGRIP

The ice core is believed to contain ice that is 120,000 years old at the bottom.¹ This date was obtained by matching the oxygen isotope ratio down this core with other ice cores in Greenland. The oxygen isotope ratio is a general measure of temperature, but many other variables can affect the ratio. All deep cores drilled into Greenland have a similar broad-scale oxygen isotope pattern. These cores show three parts: a post-ice age climate with temperatures similar to today, an ice-age climate with temperatures colder than today, and a warmer interval near the bottom of the core. So the dates of the NorthGRIP core depend upon the dates previously obtained in other Greenland ice cores.

It is important to note that none of these ice cores comes with dates attached. The dates must be inferred, which means that old age is automatically built into the ice cores based on the evolutionary/uniformitarian paradigm. There are various methods for dating ice cores, which fall into four general categories: (1) annual layer counting by using several of the measured variables down the core, (2) glaciological flow modeling, (3) use of reference horizons and correlation with other dated time series and (4) comparison with the Milankovitch insolation changes.⁴

The most scientific method is counting annual layers of ice accumulation down the ice core. The snow turns to ice by the pressure of subsequent annual layers squeezing out the air between the grains of snow. The snow is usually turned to ice in the Greenland Ice Sheet at about 200 feet deep. Annual layers show up quite well at the top of the ice core in a number of measured variables, such as oxygen isotope ratios, dust, various chemicals, and differences in the ice between summer and winter. It is claimed that one can count these annual layers down the core, like counting tree rings in a tree to determine its age. In this way, researchers have counted 110,000 annual layers down the GISP2 core and supposedly verified their chronology.

There are a number of problems with this claim of counting 110,000 annual layers, however.⁵Since ice compresses vertically and spreads horizontally with depth, the annual layers thin with depth. The measured variables become confused by the middle of the ice core, and the confusion is especially noticeable in the ice-age portion of the core. The annual layer method works well in the upper part of the core for a few thousand years, but it requires some major assumptions to guide the interpretation of the middle and lower parts of the core. Based on their evolutionary/uniformitarian paradigm, the researchers assume that the ice sheet has been in equilibrium for millions of years.¹ Once they make this assumption, they rely on the second and third main methods of measurement—glaciological flow models tied to reference horizons—to provide a first guess for the thickness of annual layers.

In contrast to the evolutionary/uniformitarian model, the Creation/Flood ice-age model⁷ predicts much thicker annual layers in the lower and middle parts of the ice core, and glaciologists measure subannual or storm layers. It is known that modern storms duplicate with similar amplitude many of the annual layer signatures. If you expect a thicker annual layer deeper in the core, these signatures will show up, while those who believe the evolutionary/uniformitarian model assume that compression and diffusion have wiped out the subannual layers. So, the paradigm determines the age of the ice sheet.

Of course, all climatological systems and 'dated' reference horizons are all correlated to the fourth main mechanism for dating cores, Milankovitch insolation changes. The changes in sunlight absorbed at the surface (insolation) are caused by changes in the earth's orbital geometry. These changes are cyclical over past time and are the main reason for postulating multiple ice ages. The modern Milankovitch dating scheme was first applied to deep-sea cores and subsequently applied to all other climate systems. Deep ice cores in Antarctica are almost exclusively dated by this method. There are many problems with the Milankovitch mechanism.^8–10 Perhaps the biggest problem is that the periodicity of the earth's orbital eccentricity every 100,000 years changes the sunlight absorbed at the earth's surface only a very small amount. The mechanism is much too weak to cause such dramatic climate change as an ice age.

Why drill another ice core so close to GRIP?

The main reason for drilling another ice core so close to GRIP is because of the surprisingly rapid oscillations in the oxygen isotope ratio during the last supposed interglacial, about 120,000 years ago according to the evolutionary/uniformitarian timescale.¹¹ Scientists had previously noted such rapid back-and-forth climate changes in other Greenland ice cores during the glacial period. The temperature is believed to have shifted up to 38°F (20°C) in a few decades, with some associated effects changing as fast as 1 to 3 years:

'These millennial-scale events represent quite large climate deviations: probably 20°C [38°F] in central Greenland … . The events often begin or end rapidly: changes equal to most of the glacial-interglacial differences commonly occur over decades, and some indicators, more sensitive to shifts in the pattern of atmospheric circulation, change in as little as 1–3 years.'¹²

Such changes in the GRIP ice core are believed to represent the climate around the North Atlantic.

The discovery of such catastrophic changes during the 'previous interglacial' in the GRIP core especially alarmed the scientists. If such catastrophic shifts to a colder climate could occur in the 'previous interglacial,' then it could happen in the present interglacial. The temperature could quickly plunge several tens of degrees, possibly aided by global warming. We are between ice ages, according to the evolutionary/uniformitarian paradigm. So, the next ice age could occur soon:

'If the past is any indication, the earth is at the end of another such warm period, poised to descend into a new ice age.'¹

This change could occur suddenly.

However, the American team that drilled the GISP2 core disputes the climatic significance of the interglacial oscillations in the GRIP core, claiming instead that the oscillations represent mixing of ice at the bottom due to glacial flow over rough terrain.¹³ The main purpose, therefore, for drilling NorthGRIP so close to GRIP was to test whether the temperature-proxy oscillations in the previous interglacial were due to rough bedrock or to catastrophic interglacial climate changes.² Based on radio-echo soundings, the bedrock below NorthGRIP is smooth, which should eliminate deformations caused by rough bedrock.

NorthGRIP surprises

Since NorthGRIP is so close to GRIP, but with a smooth bedrock surface, the scientists expected that the bottom of the ice would be undisturbed. So the 'previous interglacial' would not be disturbed by a rough bottom. Any sharp changes in the temperature proxy would then be caused by catastrophic interglacial climate oscillations. Based on glaciological flow model dating, they expected to find the previous interglacial at about 2750–2850 m deep. However, this ice still had not been reached by a depth of 3001 m.² Supposedly this interglacial ice has been reached this summer, but whether they found the climate oscillations or not has not been revealed, as far as I know.

The researchers may not be able to settle the question because of another surprise. The bottom of the ice showed mysterious undulations up to 200 m amplitude near the bottom in the radio-echo imagery. So skeptical scientists can still point to temperature oscillations as caused by ice deformation.

A third surprise was that the ice near the bottom was melting. Since the ice came from central Greenland, the researchers had expected the ice to be frozen to the bed, based on the nearby GRIP and GISP2 cores. The Greenland Ice Sheet is much more complex than uniformitarian scientists expected, rendering their conclusions extremely tenuous, at best.

Typical obfuscation on the part of Creationists: look for scientifically accepted weaknesses in one area and then use it to undermine scientifically accepted beliefs across the whole spectrum.

You refer to: "the evolutionary/uniformitarian paradigm" suggesting that some isolated portion of science has hijacked the "truth" as you see it, when in reality your beliefs deny most of science's theories and knowledge. And yes, go ahead and read the word theory to mean just wild misguided guesses because that is another well known part of creationist technique.

You keep saying this is suspect or that is suspect, knowing that scientists disagree over some of the finer points, as is the nature of science. What you don't say is that while any particular date may be in dispute, the disputed dates are all far, far older than your totally unsupported dates. You delight in astronomers disagreeing by some millions of years or even a billion years the age of the universe, without mentioning that they all agree its billions of years older than what you claim. Ditto on the age of the earth.

Take some suspect carbon 14 datings and then go on to say that all of them are suspect, ignoring the massive amounts of cross confirmation over time by many other methods to bring the error band down to only a few percent for most datings.

You approach everything with the closed minded view that you already know the what the outcome should be, ignore everything that contradicts your view, then desperately latch on to any evidence of uncertainty in this or that specific area and then extrapolate that cast doubt on everything else, which you dare not do directly because if you want lack of evidence, just look to your own ilk. You simply have none and have to fall back on dogmatic rhetoric, and conjured explanations.

So what exactly is your point about those particular ice cores? They are off by a few thousand years? A few tens of thousands? Or, as I suspect you would like to claim they are off by about 100,000 years?

Tell us, please, how would you date the ice cores in some coherent way, consistent with other dating methods that YOU accept?

What evidence do you have to support your claim as to the age of the earth. What evidence do you have that supports the "flood" as you understand it in its literal worldwide sense? What evidence that life appeared, in all its known forms all at once?

Your approach is the antithesis of science and you insult us by claiming to be interested in it and even citing it at times when it suits you.

Greg

Greg,

Have a nice day!

Dan

"Keep an open mind my friend!"

You have to be joking!

I assume that means open like yours.

This is rapidly becoming a poor joke.

Next you'll be telling us we are doing the devil's work.

You seem to keep forgetting this is a scientific based forum, not a pulpit for the "Church of Dan" and your own interpretation of the Bible.

Greg

Good One Fellows!! Enjoyed the discussion.

"Church of Dan"......very nice Greg! How old and professional are you anyway?

To Ichbindan:

Dan,

You can say anything you like, but your posts reveal a completely closed mind, in addition to one ignorant of the scientific process:

"The problem I have is that they don't answer the obvious questions about the origin of life."

The difference is that they are trying while you feel there is no point since all they have to do is ask you and you will enlighten them by quoting passages from the Bible.

If these "real scientists" have all this "real scientific data", then why aren't they able to create life out of nothing in these multi-million dollar labs they use?"

Well, you win there, because you can't create "something" out of "nothing". But on the other hand, mankind has created new "forms" of life for thousands of years by selective breeding, and the very foods you eat are the result. Now far more than that is routinely done in laboratories by direct genetic manipulation. As to actually creating "life", you are also right, they haven't been able to do that yet, however there is no scientific reason it won't happen, except that we both know when it does, you won't believe it, because you have clearly stated as much. But then, you who holds science in such low esteem, have taken it upon yourself to decide what avenues of scientific inquiry are valid, and what are a waste of time and money. Your hubris is laughable.

"Creationist beliefs are constant and answer new findings with relative ease."

Yes, the Creationists (and you) answer them by flat out denial.

If you choose to believe the Bible literally regarding Genesis and Noah actually having two of every animal on his ark that is certainly your right, but don't expect evolutionary science to crumble on that account.

Whereas:

"If new findings do not fit the Evolution theory, the theory is altered to fit the findings."

That is precisely what separates science from dogma, religious or otherwise. Your simple failure to understand that basic difference is at the root of your confusion about science.

Who in the world set you up to define the Creator, and claim to speak in his behalf? I find that attitude to be presumptuous to say the least. I for one claim no such "anointing" or special status.

I'll let others speak for themselves regarding your "beliefs", interpretation of the fossil record, and what science is about.

I am dumbstruck as to why you want to discuss your religious beliefs at length in a scientific related forum when you have no appreciation of science itself.

Is there perhaps a clue in your choice of the name "Ichbendan"?

Greg

Greg,

You seem to be offended. If at my expense, I apologize. Your opionion as to whether or not I am closed minded. For the record, I am very open minded. Just because I am on one side of a debate doesn't make me closed minded.

Well, you win there, because you can't create "something" out of "nothing". Isn't that at the heart of evolution? Big Bang?

As to actually creating "life", you are also right, they haven't been able to do that yet, however there is no scientific reason it won't happen, except that we both know when it does, you won't believe it, because you have clearly stated as much.

Sure I will because science interests me.

Yes, the Creationists (and you) answer them by flat out denial

Denial of what? When a scientist uses carbon dating and gets different answers for the same piece of material, I have to deny the answers are accurate. Remember that if something is fact it must be observable and repeatable.

Who in the world set you up to define the Creator, and claim to speak in his behalf?

Good one. Actually the Creator asks that we do speak of Him.

I am dumbstruck as to why you want to discuss your religious beliefs at length in a scientific related forum when you have no appreciation of science itself

You are the one that brought God into this discussion.

Your tone is one of obvious hatred or anger toward anyone that doesn't believe the way you do. I have simply stated from the "other side", because as we all know there are 2 sides to every story. Your story (Evolution) discounts any meaning as to our existance, while mine (Creation) provides an understanding of our existance and gives all credit to a supreme being.....God.

Ichbindan is German for I am Dan.

Dan,

That you even think it was a discussion is just another of your self righteous delusions. You are in no way open to a discussion, only in warping science to fit your closed minded view.

I am in no way offended, and no apology is necessary, least of all to me.

From some of your posts:

"Science and the Bible do not conflict at all. As I stated earlier, they actually compliment each other by revealing both are correct."

"Give me one example of a scientific finding that cannot be supported by the Bible, and spare me the flawed radiometric dating methods."

"The Bible, religious in nature, is a historical record that has been proven to be very accurate by science."

"One more before I go......do you fellows know how old the oldest living tree in the world has been ring-dated to? ~4500 yrs........there is that number AGAIN! Do you really think this is a coincidence?"

"For the record, I am very open minded. Just because I am on one side of a debate doesn't make me closed minded."

"Sure I will because science interests me."

Ok, you say science and the Bible do not conflict at all, and I agree, but in your own completely self contradictory way you create conflicts all over, because you say things that would completely turn much of science (biochemistry, genetics, biology, anthropology, geology, nuclear physics, paleontology, astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, archeology, linguistics, just for starters) on its head. You are taking science to mean the views of a very, very few Creationist minded so called "scientists" speaking for the most part completely out of their specializations to represent science as YOU see it.

Then you say:

"You are the one that brought God into this discussion"

Wrong again! It was a member in post #10, as he often does, sometimes quoting from the Bible, while this time more subtly, but still just as obvious in intent:

"Protein molecules from where???

__________________
Jesus is LORD. Praise the LORD. "

Finally you say:

"Your tone is one of obvious hatred or anger toward anyone that doesn't believe the way you do. I have simply stated from the "other side", because as we all know there are 2 sides to every story. Your story (Evolution) discounts any meaning as to our existance, while mine (Creation) provides an understanding of our existance and gives all credit to a supreme being.....God."

I harbor no hate or anger, least of all here. If you spend time here you will know that I speak in a blunt way directly toward the "issues". Rather it is you who think that you have the right to define the way other people view God, the Bible and their relationship to science. If you find that mainstream science undermines your belief in God, then I truly feel sorry for you, but I would never hate you or be angry with you.

I am not trying to influence a belief in God, or the Bible, only correct your misunderstandings about science. I never denied the existence of God or implied the Bible was in any way wrong, rather I addressed very specifically YOUR literal interpretations, and extrapolations related to the absurd, contradictory views on science where you pick and choose parts that you feel don't contradict you, while completely disregarding the vast bulk that does. Now, if that isn't a closed mind, then what would you call it?

My whole point is only that science stands or falls within its own particular framework, and not at all on the basis of preconceived outside belief systems of what any particular outcome or finding should be. Further, it adapts to new evidence and discoveries which you are free to view as a weakness, but is really its strength, and the very basis of the "scientific method".

Greg

I know DNA replicates, but that is a far more complex process than just a bunch of hydrocarbon molecules in a pea soup. Do we have any notion of what the self-replicating protein compounds were at a molecular level?

Any early form of RNA, or other Ribose based nucleic acids. Yes, free-floating RNA can be self-replicating, you don't have to be DNA in need of ribosomes inside the "safe environment" of the cytoplasm. Retro Viruses are compounds, We only treat them as "Cells". Life didn't ask for our opinion or classifications to start complex amino acids before replication appeared. Once replications starts, it becomes self-preserving, relative to the surrounding soup. (Soup??? What soup ???)

No lunatics.

If there was no moon then there was no full moon

conclusion

no werewolf strories ever existed

Less frequent earthquakes? Less tectonic plate shifting?

Without moonlight there might me more bat like nocturnal species to rule the night.

I wonder if all our eyesight might be better?

MAN! THIS THREAD REALLY GOT OUT OF HAND! I, FOR ONE, BELIEVE THAT GOD CREATED EVERYTHING. THE MORE MAN LEARNS, THE MORE HE FORGETS WHERE HE CAME FROM! I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN THE CREATION. IF ANY OF YOU DO NOT, YOU BETTER BE RIGHT!!!! JAMES