Your article "Oard's Moonbeam" looks well researched but it shows some hatred for God, in my view.
Oard is right,
“Planetary scientists won’t give up. They must have a naturalistic hypothesis for all origins, including the moon’s, so will believe almost any hypothesis to fill the void. In regard to the moon and despite a long history of theorizing, ‘The origin of the Moon is still unresolved.’ The idea that the moon was specially created ex nihilo at its present distance and in its present orbit some 6,000 years ago is still the most reasonable explanation for its origin.”
A “scientific” neutral position would be:
One hypothesis is God having created the Moon. Points in favour are….
But no, your article is very emotional, therefore showing this is not about science but about different worldviews and the God hypothesis is never considered. Why? Because you are searching for the truth? No, because you don’t like the truth looks like the real reason.
“This is the same striving for truth, and questioning of even minor details by scientists that feeds Oard with papers to distort. The willing rejection of reality exhibited by Oard is the hallmark of young Earth creationists and other fantasists.”
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/oard_moon_beam_gh.htm - ha! Search for truth is rejecting the God hypothesis? Really?
It’s like buying a man made world globe, putting it in a table and saying: now fellow scientists, let’s find out how this globe came into being, but only materialistic explanations are possible, this was not made by human hands.
Are you willing to give any non-emotional (or at least controlled) comments on my thoughts?
Thank you for your attention.
« Back to index