(June 11, 2014 at 9:40 am)Cato Wrote:

(June 11, 2014 at 6:17 am)Esquilax Wrote: If there's a problem with a sample size of one with regards to evolution, then there's an equal problem there for any claim of creation or design you'd care to make.

Not to mention God is a sample size of one with no evidence.

(June 11, 2014 at 9:38 am)Chas Wrote:

(June 9, 2014 at 11:47 pm)snowtracks Wrote: that the moon formation event and the moon itself provides the earth with 1. magnetic field, 2. radioactivity to drive plate tectonics, 3. stabilizes the earth's axial tilt, thus avoiding the chaotic zone - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v36...615a0.html - all three are vital to advanced life.

#1 and #2 are simply not true.

Earth's magnetic field is driven by its molten iron core which was there before the collision.

And the same for radioactivity. Those heavy elements were already present.

The collision would have been a glancing blow and involved only the crust and mantle.

(June 13, 2014 at 2:06 am)snowtracks Wrote:

(June 11, 2014 at 9:38 am)Chas Wrote: #1 and #2 are simply not true.

Earth's magnetic field is driven by its molten iron core which was there before the collision.

And the same for radioactivity. Those heavy elements were already present.

The collision would have been a glancing blow and involved only the crust and mantle.

had some metals, but not enough for magnetic field or to form land masses.
"In the collision, both cores ended up in the center of Earth" pg264http://www.think-downloads.com/download/Space/Universe/rare_earth_why_complex_life_is_uncommon_in_the_universe.pdf

(June 13, 2014 at 8:03 am)Chas Wrote:

(June 13, 2014 at 2:06 am)snowtracks Wrote: had some metals, but not enough for magnetic field or to form land masses.
"In the collision, both cores ended up in the center of Earth" pg264http://www.think-downloads.com/download/Space/Universe/rare_earth_why_complex_life_is_uncommon_in_the_universe.pdf

That idea is a very, very minority opinion. It is tediously anthropocentric.
It also assumes an impact for which there is no evidence; the evidence points to a glancing blow not involving the cores.

(June 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(June 13, 2014 at 8:03 am)Chas Wrote: That idea is a very, very minority opinion. It is tediously anthropocentric.
It also assumes an impact for which there is no evidence; the evidence points to a glancing blow not involving the cores.

majority theory: cores merged, around 2 minutes on video. but nice try though. http://www.history.com/shows/the-univers...f-the-moon

Quote:Testing the Giant Impact Hypothesis
The initial temperatures of the Earth and Moon, the chemical compositions of their mantles, and the time when their cores formed in principle can be used to test the giant impact hypothesis. Unfortunately, planet formation and the subsequent formation of crusts, mantles, and cores is so complicated that much of the evidence may be destroyed. Furthermore, we do not yet have sufficient data to test all the possibilities.

---

One of the most important predictions of the giant impact hypothesis is that the Earth should be mostly molten when it formed. This would have led to complete separation of elements that concentrate into metallic iron when the core formed. The composition of the Earth's upper mantle today suggests incomplete core formation or addition after core formation of a veneer of rocky material containing metallic iron. The problem is that the extent to which elements concentrate in metallic iron varies with pressure, temperature, and the amount of available oxygen and sulfur, and not enough experiments have been done to map out all those variables. On top of all that, the experiments are extremely difficult to do.In addition, the continued growth of the Earth by large impacts might have led to episodes of magma oceans and core formation, not just one event. Each impact would not necessarily have led to a newly homogenized planet, either, as the impactors are thousands of kilometers across. It is not easy to thoroughly mix such huge masses of rock, even if molten.

---

In fact, we do not know if Earth's lower mantle has the same composition as the upper mantle today.
The First Few Hundred Million Years of the Earth
Although not proven to everyone's satisfaction, the giant impact hypothesis explains a lot about the Earth and Moon. Combined with our current understanding of accretion, it leads to a dynamic and somewhat terrifying picture of the first few hundred million years for both bodies.

(June 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(June 13, 2014 at 8:03 am)Chas Wrote: That idea is a very, very minority opinion. It is tediously anthropocentric.
It also assumes an impact for which there is no evidence; the evidence points to a glancing blow not involving the cores.

majority theory: cores merged, around 2 minutes on video. but nice try though. http://www.history.com/shows/the-univers...f-the-moon

(June 14, 2014 at 7:07 am)Chas Wrote:

(June 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)snowtracks Wrote: majority theory: cores merged, around 2 minutes on video. but nice try though. http://www.history.com/shows/the-univers...f-the-moon

Try an actual scientific citation. Not even a nice try.
If you listen to sources like that, your brain will turn to mush.

(June 14, 2014 at 7:19 am)pocaracas Wrote: Snowtracks, here's what these people consider a reputable source:
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/scitech/disp...?ST_ID=446

and

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~planets/sstewart/Moon.html

Enjoy them.

(June 14, 2014 at 6:28 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(June 14, 2014 at 7:19 am)pocaracas Wrote: Snowtracks, here's what these people consider a reputable source:
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/scitech/disp...?ST_ID=446

and

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~planets/sstewart/Moon.html

Enjoy them.

solarsystem.nasa.gov--- same conclusion.
The impactor now hits the Earth again (frame 9), but this time is incorporated into the Earth (frames 10-12). Its metallic core becomes part of Earth's core.