Phobos and Deimos Once a Single Moon?

blamanj writes "Phobos (fear) and Diemos (panic), the twin moons of Mars have caused astronomers grief for years, as conventional hypotheses about the moons either violate physical laws or have difficulty accounting for their observed orbits. Now a new hypothesis conjectures that they were once a single moon, that broke apart in an ancient catastrophe."

Comments

Moons

[Tyreth]

Singer said Phobos will die in a few million years.

"Were lucky in the sense that were seeing Phobos while its still around," he said.

As opposed to, potentially, other moons that once existed and now have died out?

Our own moon also defies all explanations of science too, including this marvel:

One of the most fascinating sights in the sky is a total eclipse of the sun. This is possible because the moon is almost exactly the same angular size (half a degree) in the sky as the sun--it is both 400 times smaller and 400 times closer than the sun. This looks like design. If the moon had really been receding for billions of years, and man had been around for a tiny fraction of that time, the chances of mankind living at a time so he could observe this precise size matchup would be remote.

from here

The Reasons

[quinkin]

Sure.

"chances of mankind living at a time so he could observe this precise size matchup would be remote."

This seems to be the crux of your argument - and is basically a restatement of "chance never happens" (made famous as God Does Not Play Dice).

So - not only are you Offtopic (your statement regarding the apparent observed size of the earths moon is completely meaningless in the context of the Phobos/Deimos discussion) but you are also touting the Weak Anthropic Principle as proof positive that some external force must have been involved - hence flamebait (a.k.a. BS).

"...while we are at it, someone can tell me why it is that every evolutionist who engages a creationist has never yet understood the creationist position."

Ah, well this one is easy.

It is because I never get the same BS from the same Creationist twice in a row.

If you are happy to co-habit your creationist/evolutionist views then power to you. If you are the usual creationist, anti-evolutionist then the main problem I have is that your "source documents" are er... interesting at best.

Let us look at your beloved trueorigin.org:
"Most advocates of evolutionism subscribe to a set of naturalistic and mechanistic--if not humanistic--philosophical presuppositions, inevitably adding a fundamentalist bias to their perspective."

I'm sorry, but when a staunchly religious site starts by criticizing my philosophical "pre-suppositions"(sic) imparting a "fundamental bias" then my theologically open mind immediately assumes you are a bunch of hypocritical zealots. Or at least mentally challenged.

Perhaps this holier-than-thou prattle could be replaced occasionally by some meaningfull thoughts and ideas - not just trashing of anyone who doesn't agree with you (that is what /. is for).

I enjoy discussing these interesting (and ultimately I believe unanswerable) quandries with my various theologically and philosophically inclined friends. However - they most certainly do not all present the same creationist hypothesis (lets not call it a theory please) of the universe... it's called diversity and is an integral part of belief.

Q.

Re:The Reasons

[pyr0]

Ha! I find it very ironic and that a creationist would quote Steven J. Gould to help support his argument. Something just seems very wrong about that to me. Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again, any post that makes a reference to "data" (in the loosest sense of the term because it's only un-scientifically backed speculation) coming from a creationist website is automatically worthless.

You also mention: "There are many different evolutionists with different ideas. The same problem exists. So instead of saying 'there's never the same thing', I instead show them when they veer from what is actually taught, or answer their arguments when it is the official evolutionary line." I suggest you go read the link in my sig as an answer to this.

Re:The Reasons

[Tyreth]

Umm...let's think about this....maybe because the skeletal structure (that's a concrete observation by the way, no speculation) shares characteristics with both?

Unfortunately, that's not science. You are using logic and reason to speculate about it's ancestry and descendants. You cannot repeat or observe tests to prove scientifically that archaeopteryx is what it is said to be. It is based on reason, logic (faulty in my mind), but not science. It is extremely deceptive and wicked to accuse creationism of being unscientific when the fact is that *any* model dealing with origins is outside of science. That doesn't make it worthless, it just makes it unscientific. Philosophy uses logic and reason - we use it every day - and we employ scientific knowledge to support a model or theory that is, by and large, unscientific in and of itself.

and then my opponent just throws faith up in my face typically

I'm sorry to hear that. I have a couple of thoughts. First, those creationists I see defending our position on slashdot I almost never see throwing up faith (I say almost never because there may have been one occasion, I can't recall). I personally never resort to that position unless it fits within the account given. For example, the flood was clearly a miraculous intervention, so it is completely reasonable to assume that this supernatural event was filled with God's work - for example, collecting all the animals, shutting the ark door, creating the floodwaters, etc. However, I never believe that God created the earth with an old look to test us, or that He tried to hide anything. But this should not be used as a cause for complaint against us.
Consider when evidence that supports creation is given (and there is much for it). The evolutionary response is not to say "wow, maybe there is some evidence for creation", it is exactly the same as our response - "this is an exception, and we just don't understand the situation properly yet". Take, for example, mitochondrial DNA mutation rates. This shows very strongly that all humans descended from one woman around 6,000 years ago. A powerful evidence for creation, but the evolutionary response is that there's just a missing clue, because it's an impossible result.

The things that creationists are accused of are done also by evolutionists. We have been unfairly accused.

I'm curious though, how often do you encounter these christians who throw up the faith argument? I should very much like to see them do it next time you find them, because they are causing damage to our position. They misunderstand the meaning of the word "faith", which is our trust in God to do what He has promised, nothing to do with believing in things we cannot prove.

Point A, while interesting, is really not the same as the moon example I gave. The chances of Point A happening is probably close to 1/1, whereas the chance of humans having culture flourish very suddenly at the exact time the moon is the right size and distance to cover us during an eclipse, and 400 times smaller and closer no less, is extraordinarily unique. It is not a 1/1 chance. And as I said before, I'm not quoting it as evidence of creation on itself, it is merely a strange oddity, a source of fascination, and that's all I meant it to be.

Anyway, I'm just rambling and burning karma points now, so I'll quit.

Don't worry about it :) I've been on excellent karma for a long time, and these posts never drop me below. We have certainly gone off topic by now at any rate, even though I'm still convinced my first post was neither flamebait or off topic.

Re:Offtopic? -- here's why

[Tyreth]

This parent topic was certainly offtopic, but the post I was complaining about being moderated was not offtopic, which do you dispute?

Whether or not you agree with me on creationism is irrelevant. The point of offtopic moderations is strictly for offtopic posts (which the parent post here was, but the post it linked to wasn't). Flame posts are restricted for posts deliberately designed for flaming - and while some may disagree with me, flaming was definately not my intention, and was not the result.

If you disagree with something in a post, or you think it is incorrect, you have two options:
1. Moderate replies that support your position or the correction
2. Post in response

Offtopic and flamebait should NOT be used for modding down posts just because you disagree.

I do not need your empathy regarding my "inability to believe in a God without buying in to the popular myths of your cultural ancestors over the millenia". You have examined the evidence and come to your conclusions. I have done the same. I am persuaded of what I believe because I happen to think the evidence supports it. That is not the issue at hand. Telling me that answersingesis, etc, all have the same arguments they used to, and that you once believed but now have been able to see the light do little to persuade me. The simple fact is, I have not yet met a single evolutionist who understands the creation model. I am interested in specifics regarding evidence and arguments, not general statements of discovery. I must understand why. There is nothing to respond to in your post except general statements such as "they are lies" - what more can I say to that, unless you point out a specific lie?

If you metamodded my parent post offtopic as fair, I couldn't care less. However, I am worried if you metamoderated the offtopic rating of this post then I would be worried.

Re:Offtopic? -- here's why

[Tyreth]

Okay, well, it had nothing to do with the moons of Mars.

Hang on - what are you saying - that it was my original post about the moon that you metamoderated down? Just because it was not about the moons of mars it was still certainly on topic - it was about strange mathematical qualities of a moon - in the very same nature of the original story. How many hundreds of thousands of posts are made that are more 'offtopic' than that modded up?

Please excuse me if I misunderstand what you are saying here.

That in itsself should be enough for the parent comment, but I want you to understand why "creation science" is thought of so poorly even by theists.

Yes, they have been told by other organisations such as PBC that answersinegenesis and other organisations are money hungry institutes playing on the ignorance of those who listen to them.

But just because they try and present that position doesn't mean it's true. I like to understand what I believe - and that has led me to reject evolution. I'm not sure why you find that so hard to comprehend. I would love to get into a discussion about this in detail - talking about specifics instead of general insults - but I've committed myself to having a break from debates to get some rest.

I will say that insults like "God gave you a brain. Use it. Please don't presume that God is so stupid that He could not have designed live via evolution a billion years ago" to brothers in the Lord do not help - because I have been using my brain which led me to a rejection of evolution. And there are plenty of others like me. Are you one of those evolutionists that doesn't understand the creation model? I suppose we could talk about that, if you are interested. What do you think is the creation model's answer to natural selection - what does it have to say about it?