|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada
Posts: 1,652
|
talkorigins November feedback
I loved this one.
Quote:
The Moon is Made of Cheese! A Creation/Evolution allegory
by Damian Carroll
The following transcript is from a debate between Carl Johnson, P.H.D., a leader in the rapidly developing field of “Celestial Foodstuffs,” and Mark Howard, an undergraduate astronomy student.
MODERATOR: Gentlemen, welcome to the debate. Today’s topic: Lunar Composition. For years, schoolchildren have been taught only one theory about the composition of our orbiting sister, the Moon, popularly known as the “Moon Is Made Of Rock” Theory. But this theory has come under fire recently by a group of religious and political activists, demanding equal time for their own views, dubbed the “Celestial Foodstuffs” Theory. Educators and scientists say that CF Theory is no more than a barely disguised reworking of the ancient “Moon Is Made Of Cheese” Theory. Our debate today will focus on differences between these two intriguing fields of research, in the hopes that the public will gain greater understanding of each. We’ll begin with Carl.
CARL: Thank you. Folks, I’m here tonight to tell you something groundbreaking. It’s something most scientists do not want you to hear. They’re afraid that if you discover the truths I’m about to tell you, you’ll stop funding their research. You won’t allow them a monopoly in what gets taught in our school science classes. But luckily, after tonight you’ll be armed with the latest in cutting-edge research and proven facts that will allow you to refute the bogus theory that has a stranglehold on our educational system. I’m talking, of course, about the “Moon Is Made Of Rock” theory. What’s that you say? You thought scientists had proof that the Moon is made of rock? Well, folks, I’m here tonight to tell you they don’t. “Moon Is Made Of Rock,” or as I like to call it, MIMOR, is just a theory. It hasn’t been proven. And until it is proven, conclusively, all we ask is that our Celestial Foodstuffs theory be given equal time.
MODERATOR: Thank you Carl. Mark…
MARK: First of all, I can’t believe we’re even having a debate about this. But since we’re all here, I’ll try to make this short. The Moon is definitely made of rock. That’s a fact. We have loads and loads of evidence. We have rocks from the Moon. We’ve run thousands of chemical tests on Moon materials – they’ve all come up as, well, rock. We’ve sent astronauts to the Moon – they saw that it was, in fact, made of rock. Now, it’s true we don’t know exactly how the Moon was formed. We have some good ideas and there is ongoing research. But as far as the Moon being made of cheese, I don’t understand how anybody could still believe that.
MODERATOR: Thanks, Mark. Carl…
CARL: Folks, Mister Howard would like you to think that all scientists agree on MIMOR. But this is absolutely not the case. I, for example, have P.H.D.s in Nutrition and Statistics, and I do not agree. Furthermore, many of my colleagues find grave problems with MIMOR theory. Even leading astronomers have trouble accepting the theory. Why, just last April NASA scientists admitted, “Many questions remain about the chemical composition of the Moon.”
MARK: That quote is totally out of context. You know as well as I do that NASA was talking about the exact chemical composition of Moon rock. They certainly do not doubt that the Moon is made of rock, and there’s no way that they are saying it might be cheese!
CARL: I’ll leave that up to the audience to decide. My point is that many questions about Moon composition remain unsolved, yet Mark Howard would have you believe they’ve got it all sewn up. That simply isn’t true.
MODERATOR: Well let’s look into your Celestial Foodstuffs theory, Carl. Tell us how your research points to the Moon having a dairy-based composition.
CARL: I’d be happy to. For hundreds of years, humans have known intuitively that the Moon is made of cheese. It’s really quite obvious if you don’t hide behind a bunch of scientific mumbo jumbo. Let me give you a little thought experiment. If you opened up your refrigerator at home, and saw something greenish white, with little holes in it, you would assume it was cheese. Any rational person would do the same. Why then, should the case of an object in the sky be any different? Logically, we should assume the same thing – the Moon is white, the Moon has holes, and therefore it is cheese. But don’t take my word for it -- I have statistical facts to back up that statement.
MODERATOR: Well let’s get into those statistics. As you know, for a long time Moon Is Made Of Cheese theory was based largely on doctrine. Poems, literature, and the like insisted that the Moon was cheese-based. But you say your Celestial Foodstuffs theory incorporates new evidence.
CARL: That’s right. Let’s first look at the so-called “scientific” theory that is taught in our schools today. Scientists tell us that the Moon is a huge ball of rock, circling – in astronomical terms – right next to the Earth, another huge ball of rock. Now I ask you, does this make sense? Does it seem likely that two balls of rock would be found right next to each other in space? Let’s look at the math. According to scientists, the ratio of empty space to rock in the universe is enormous. Jump anywhere in space and you are likely to find yourself in a totally rock-free zone. Considering this, what are the chances that two balls of rock would appear right next to each other in the vast enormity of space? I’ve performed the calculations, and the answer is: nil. Of all the places for a ball of rock to appear, right next to the Earth is so unlikely as to be statistically impossible. So we’re left with the question – if a ball of rock could not appear next to the Earth, what might the Moon in fact be? And of course, the only other possibility is a ball of cheese.
MARK: That’s totally ridiculous. You’re assuming that the Moon just appeared randomly out of nowhere. No scientist would argue that. You’ve ignored everything we know about the development of solar systems, planets, and moons. What’s more, even if you could prove that our Moon was not made of rock, there’s no reason to assume that cheese is the only other alternative. What are the chances of a ball of cheese appearing next to the earth?
CARL: I would love to give you that calculation, and believe me, I am working on it. The problem is, because science has totally ignored the possibility of Celestial Foodstuffs, we have no data about the ratio of cheese to empty space in the universe! Until science takes our theory seriously, we will have to gather that data on our own, and that takes time.
MARK: Science has no reason to study cheese ratios in the universe. We’ve never found cheese anywhere except here on Earth. On the other hand, we have found loads and loads of rock on the Moon. How do you explain that?
CARL: Mark is referring here to so-called “rock evidence,” gathered on the Moon by astronauts, that scientists claim proves their case. I don’t have to tell you that this evidence is spotty at best. Astronauts have only set foot on a very small fraction of the Moon. The Moon rocks they’ve gathered show us only tiny pieces of what the total composition of the Moon might be. Here’s a little thought experiment: imagine you are a tiny astronaut on the Moon. You come to Earth and land in Wisconsin, a region rich in cheese. In fact, your spaceship lands on a large cheese wheel. You get out of your ship, take some samples, and bring them back to the Moon. There, your Moon scientists analyze the samples, and determine that the Earth must be made of cheese! I think we can all see how NASA has made this very mistake. They’ve sent their astronauts to a couple isolated locations on the Moon that contain some rock. But we’ve seen no samples from the vast regions between those scattered Moon landings. They bring us back tiny pieces of the puzzle and expect us to jump to conclusions along with them. But there is no reason to make that jump! The Moon is no more made of rock than the Earth is made of cheese.
MARK: Carl is right. We don’t have samples from every inch of the Moon. Trying to collect them would be a logistical nightmare. We don’t have the resources to send millions of missions to the Moon to take samples in every direction. Luckily, we don’t need to do so. The samples we have from the Moon paint the larger picture, and every one of them is consistent with the moon being made of rock. We can’t prove that every inch of the Moon is rock, but we have shown that possibility to be far and away the most likely. I’d like to ask Carl, are you saying it’s a coincidence that every time we landed on the Moon, we just happened to be on a huge platform of rock?
CARL: I don’t know, Mark. That’s not for me to prove. You’re the one saying the whole Moon is rock. You’re the one saying that’s the only theory our children should hear.
MARK: We may not have rock from every corner of the Moon, but one thing we’ve never found is cheese!
CARL: That’s what science would like us to believe. But I suspect that scientists may be hiding cheese evidence, for fear that it would demolish their case. It wouldn’t be the first time science perpetrated a fraud. Let me call your attention to the Buzz Aldrin fiasco. As you know, in 1982 Mister Aldrin was caught telling a girl in a bar that some rocks in his pocket were authentic Moon rocks. But subsequent chemical tests proved that those rocks were from a ranch in Montana! Do you deny that this was a case of clear-cut lies?
MARK: Yes, we’ve all heard about the Buzz incident. But let me point out that it was scientists who discovered that fraud, and publicly debunked it! The beauty of science is that every claim is rigorously tested by a large number of individuals.
CARL: Nevertheless, we can see how scientists are perfectly capable of misleading the public. What’s more, I am not convinced that the samples brought back from the Moon are rock at all. A careful look at those samples shows that they are indistinguishable from old, hardened cheese! Anyone who has let cheese sit out for a couple days in a cold, dry climate – such as that on the Moon – knows that cheese can harden to a remarkably rock-like consistency. Imagine how hard cheese could get after a couple billion years spent orbiting the Earth! Thus, science has not proven that their samples are non-cheese.
MARK: Just because you say it could be cheese, doesn’t make it true! Are you a geologist? Have you ever taken a chemistry class?
CARL: Ah, again, we see the appeals to scientific elitism. As if regular people aren’t smart enough to understand the complexities of lunar study.
MARK: You’re the one who is treating this audience like idiots.
CARL: Mark, Mark, Mark. Science has tried again and again to beat down CF theory, and failed every time. Scientists said the Moon could not be cheese, because cheese has little holes and the Moon has big ones. We replied that a piece of cheese as big as the Moon would naturally have bigger holes. They said a piece of cheese that large would require an enormous cow to provide the milk. We replied that enormous cows may very well live right outside our solar system. They said a piece of cheese that large would emit an odor so strong –
MARK: Scientists never said any of those things! You’re making up arguments just to knock them down!
CARL: Be that as it may, your research has never looked into any of these possibilities! Have you constructed a giant cheese smell-o-meter and sent it into orbit as CF supporters have demanded? Why not? Are you afraid of what such a smell-o-meter might find?
MARK: You’re talking nonsense. Scientists don’t have time to chase down every half-baked theory that gets thrown at them. We work based on what we know. We know that the only materials ever brought back from the moon were rock. Nobody has ever shown evidence of cheese composition. You can’t expect us to take twelve steps backwards just to satisfy your idiotic demands.
CARL: But you don’t know that the whole moon is rock. You can’t be positive. You’ve only studied a tiny fraction of the moon.
MARK: A countless number of separate experiments have all arrived at the same result.
CARL: But you don’t know for sure. It’s possible that the moon is made of cheese.
MARK: It is extremely unlikely. It is so unlikely it doesn’t even warrant consideration.
CARL: But it’s possible?
MARK: Fine, yes, I suppose it’s possible, in the sense that any incredibly unlikely thing is still possible.
CARL: Exactly. And that is precisely why Celestial Foodstuffs Theory should be taught alongside MIMOR theory in school science classes. We just don’t know which is true. Millions of Americans believe firmly that the Moon is cheese, and their views should be addressed.
MARK: You’re talking about teaching something in a science class that no reputable scientist believes.
CARL: Well why should scientists have a monopoly on science? I say, let the public in. Anybody with an idea they feel passionately about deserves to have that idea taught to children in the public schools.
MARK: That’s absurd. Why even have science classes if you’re not going to teach established science?
CARL: All we ask is for our children to learn the truth.
MARK: Whose truth?
CARL: Well mine, of course. The Moon is made of cheese, Mark. It’s about time you stopped arguing and just accepted that fact.
|
That'll make you laugh, this will make you cry.
Quote:
The fact that evolution is taught quite often as fact is the biggest lie to cross this continent since its discovery. Evolution on a macro level is bad science and nothing more then frauds and dreams of poor scientists and arthropologies.
Example in point. The supposed fossil link between dinosaurs and birds, a bird-like reptile found in China. Turned out to be yet another fraud on the evolutionist landscape, just like Nananderthal Man, just like the famed "Lucy" which Leaky himself admits he found the leg bone in strata 200 feet deeper a half a mile away. But what is the real tragedy is that evolutionist or bad scientists have managed to teach millions of people around the world that they evolved from primordial goo by chance and natural selection. The biggest hoax of the 20 century. Even worse is the knowledge of the incredible complexity of just one protein matrix let alone DNA with all of its sequencing which is information, PROOF OF INTELIGENT DESIGN. Yet many scientist continue to blatently continue to ignore the obvious physical laws of the universe including the 2nd law of thermodynamics to imbrace some ridicluous theory which is PROVEN to be mathematically impossible anyway you slice it. Derek Boudreau 571-278-0823 cell
|
now the good stuff again.
Quote:
|
Can someone explain to me what the Creationists mean by a "kind"? I had an ongoing discussion with someone at AiG and when I asked this question, plus the observation that I would like to be referred to some research by the group, in order to view samples of their scientific research. I got a rude reply that it was obvious I had the wrong attitude and AiG would no longer respond to my E-mail. Kent Hovind sent me the same response when I pointed out that applying proven rules of naval architecture, Noah's Ark would sink due to the mass/displacement ratio because of the wooden supports needed to keep storm waves from collapsing the sides of a rectangular vessel, with a minimally curved bottom, even without animals aboard. Even if it did not sink immediately, the joints of a wooden craft in rough water would need constant patching and constant bailing of the vessel to keep from sinking. I also wondered what kind of keel would be needed to prevent such an awkward vessel from breaking the first time a 500+ foot long wooden vessel was supported at the bow and stern, but not the middle portion, a highly probable happening in a flood where the surface of the world was covered in water and the winds had no land to reduce their force. Since it was entirely likely I had the math wrong, I referred him to a site that gave the equations. I also referred him to a professional boat builder to confirm the need to repair joints in such a vessel in those conditions. His answer to ‘what is a kind’ was "a bird is still a bird no matter what changes happen." I guess this means that there is no difference between an ostrich and a hummingbird. What is it with these folks? I thought that if you want to claim that science supports your theology you should at least be willing to be open to criticism and defend your claims just like "real science" does. Jacor
|
Enjoy!
|
12-17-2002, 03:33 AM
