Discovery of Water In Moon May Alter Origin Theory 170
MarkWhittington writes "Scientists, working on a NASA grant, have made another startling discovery concerning water on the Moon. It seems that the interior of the Moon has far more water in it than previously thought — as much as the Earth does, apparently. Researchers made this discovery by examining samples of volcanic glass brought back to Earth by the Apollo 17 astronauts. These tiny beads of glass have about 750 parts per million of water in them: about the same amount as similar volcanic glass on Earth. It is postulated that more water than previously imagined exists deep below the lunar surface and was brought up and trapped in these crystalline beads by volcanic action billions of years ago." Phil Plait's original post adds more detail.
Comets? (Score:5, Interesting)
Couldn't it be possible that the comet impacts created the water containing glass? A sufficiently large impact should melt some rock that may look lite it was brought up from inside the moon. The current theory is that water is deposited by comets; why not the glass too?
Re:A few too many zeros (Score:3, Interesting)
You're following a fallacious premise in-line with your predispostion to address Christianity exclusively by forming a Straw Man Fallacy regarding it.
It makes not the slightest difference to the correctness of a position how many people can be named historically to have held an erroneous opinion about some aspect of it. Literally no field of study could pass this criteria--and shouldn't, because it's merely an intentionally-impossible criterion to meet, to attempt to insure for oneself that they won't need to address a particular topic on the proponderance of good argument for it.
This is what is "disingenuous" here, specifically your approach to the subject as is in-line with the majority of atheistic "argument". What matters to any intellectually-honest person is whether a particular position is -viable at it's best-, not how many instances there were that some student or follower of the overarching topic held an erroneous view. This is the very definition of a Straw Man Fallacy.
Anyway, provide your counterexamples. I've demonstrated the views of one of those considered a "church Father", which, is essentially the -very definition- of early Christianity. You've provided nothing. As of today, the preponderance of support for the YEC/six-day-creation is originating specifically from the Evangelical movement, whereas what could be the "orthodox" you reference, the Catholic Church, currently acknowledged evolution, and Origen is fully considered foundational by the actual Orthodox Church.
So, gain a margin of backing of your position by posting some actual evidence of your stance, or using terminology meaningfully. Feel free to start on either one.
Re:A few too many zeros (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't mind you directly obviously lying about the quality of discussion in this case or others, because you have no worthwhile response, but I do worry about my grammar being criticized. :p
It's in quotes because a fallacious argument likely should not be considered an actual "argument", much "not-X", where "X" is anything, is nothing specific at all.
Like "a-theism". See the "Reification Fallacy".
Okay, admitted. I like my double-quotes.
Re:Off topic but... (Score:5, Interesting)
At least it's not an entry on the Fox News website.
Oh, yes, at least. Better that we wait a year for some other news source to pick up the story! [foxnews.com]