The Right Opinion
Mormons Have Irrational Beliefs? Who Doesn't?
Commentators on both the right and left and both secular and religious note with disdain that Mormons (Latter Day Saints, as Mormons refer to themselves) have irrational practices and beliefs. The former, we are told, includes the wearing of sacred undergarments and the latter includes posthumous baptisms and the claims by the prophet of Mormonism to have found and deciphered engraved golden plates in New York State.
I read and hear these dismissals of Mormonism with some amusement -- because everyone who makes these charges holds beliefs and/or practices that outsiders consider just as irrational.
Let's begin with the religious critics.
There doesn't exist a religion without such beliefs. I say this as a believing and practicing (non-Orthodox) Jew, so I'll begin with my own religion.
I believe the Torah is a divine book. I believe that God took the Jews out of Egypt and that He gave the Ten Commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai. To atheists and secularists, these are not necessarily rational beliefs. And they are certainly not scientifically provable. As for practices that many would consider irrational, traditional Judaism has quite a few. Just to cite one: Orthodox Jews believe that they are not permitted to drink wine or grape juice poured by a non-Jew.
Concerning Mormon undergarments, it is worth noting that Jews have worn a "sacred undergarment" for thousands of years. Those who belittle Mormon undergarments might as well belittle the "fringes" (tzitzit) that observant Jewish men wear inside or outside their clothing. Yet, neither the Jewish nor the Mormon practice is in any way irrational. Wearing a garment to remind oneself to always act in a morally elevated manner hardly constitutes irrational behavior.
As for Christianity, non-Christians cannot be expected to regard the belief that God has a son who was born of a virgin as reason-based. (If they did, they would probably be Christian.) Nor do outsiders consider rational the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox belief that the wafer and wine consumed during Communion literally become the body and blood of Christ.
As for Muslims, the belief that the Koran was dictated by an angel to an illiterate man (Islam holds that Muhammad was illiterate) is surely not rational to a non-Muslim. Nor are myriad post-Koranic beliefs such as the requirement that women wear a veil.
If all religious beliefs were dictated by reason alone, there would be no meaning to the word faith. A healthy religious life is composed of both faith and reason. And so is a healthy moral life -- no non-Jewish rescuer of Jews in the Holocaust did so solely because of reason.
As for the secular world, irrational beliefs permeate the left. For example, a generation of Americans has been educated to believe that men and women are, beyond physical differences, the same. Boys don't inherently prefer trucks and toy guns and girls don't naturally gravitate to dolls and tea sets, we have long been told. Give boys dolls and tea sets and give girls trucks and they will love to play with those things. Is that rational?
Or how about the tens of millions of people who believed Marxist claptrap about the inevitability of socialism? It was "scientific fact," the world's left believed, that every society goes through three stages: feudalism, capitalism, socialism.
And given the inability of any welfare state to sustain itself economically, is it rational to advocate the continuing expansion of government, as supposedly rational New York Times columnists do?
Is the belief that 50,000 Americans die each year from secondhand smoke rational? Is the certitude that we know what the climate will be in a half century rational? Or declaring sixth-graders guilty of sexual harassment for engaging in innocent, normal-boy behavior?
It seems to me that our secular age is a more irrational one than when America was more religious.
Rarely has the warning to get rid of the beam in your own eye in order to see the speck in your friend's eye been as applicable as it is to those who today mock Mormonism for irrationality.
We would do a lot better to judge Mormonism -- and, for that matter, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the left -- by their fruits. And if we do, the religion of the Republican presidential candidate looks pretty good.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

38 Comments
wjm in Colorado
Tuesday, June 19, 2012 at 11:06 AM
For the incontinent, Depends could be viewed as a sacred undergarment. Islam is not a religion, but an evil form of totalitarian governance. Marxists insanely believe if they continue to apply the policy, in some fantasy land this time it will work. I have no problem with Mormons, they are in most cases very law abiding and civil folk, not tyranical treasonous dictators of the Obamao ilk.
William Scott in Indiana
Tuesday, June 19, 2012 at 11:30 AM
Thank you for your courageous statements about faith. Everyone has faith, but not all faith is religious conviction. Most people believe the lights will come on when they flip the switch, even though hardly anyone can explain exactly how that works. Everyone who boards a plane believes it will fly, even though they have no clear understanding of the physics involved. Everyone who ever lived was born of a woman, but nobody knows why that works. There are powers at work in all our lives that we cannot explain, so why should we belittle anyone's beliefs, unless we do it only to make ourselves feel superior. It's a moral diversion, nothing more or less.
Richard Ryan in Lamar,Missouri
Tuesday, June 19, 2012 at 11:31 AM
Personally I could care less that Romney is Mormon. It`s extremely difficult to argue that Mormons are not good, God loving, patriotic Americans. That`s a lot more than can be said for Obama.
Rex Peddy in Corsicana, TX
Tuesday, June 19, 2012 at 12:06 PM
Thank you for your "common sense" writing. God knows what is inside our hearts and if He is pleased with what He see's, that is all that really matters. My job, with His help, is to see that He is pleased.
Army Officer (Ret) in Kansas
Tuesday, June 19, 2012 at 1:28 PM
Dennis does not understand the difference between "unproven" and "irrational." Some beliefs really are irrational, while other things that are obviously true are inexplicable. There's a reason why we use the phrase "weigh the evidence."
bc in utah
Tuesday, June 19, 2012 at 2:01 PM
Dennis makes a good point. Often this is a story of the pot calling the kettle black.
However, there are areas where the Mormon church is more problematic or even weirder than standard religion.
Take the garments. Yes, many religions have religious clothing. However with Mormons they have secret markings that they aren't allowed to tell you what they mean - this are markings plagiarized from the Masons - so that is weird. Also, within Mormon culture there is a lot of belief that these garments provide physical protection beyond just the fabric - this is where the "magic" underwear comes in.
Also Mormons in their temple literally pledge their that they are willing to die and to give all of their possessions to the church - not to God, but to the church. This goes beyond mainstream Christianity. They also have policies of public exclusion and shaming for being unworthy (for example if you drink coffee you are not allowed to attend your children's wedding in the temple - and Mormon's are strongly indoctrinated that you must get married in the temple. A teenager who "touches themselves" is not allowed to partake of the sacrament for a time causing public humiliation and shaming.
So the Mormon church goes a bit beyond the standard US religion in some of it's weirdness.
E. Olsen in Salem Oregon
Tuesday, June 19, 2012 at 7:40 PM
What a crock. An answer by a typical bigot who cuts, pastes and twists the truth. Correcting such is an excercise in futility. They suffer from thinking errors.
greg in Utah
Tuesday, June 19, 2012 at 8:26 PM
I think that it's missing the point of Dennis' article to conclude that there is some objective "standard" of weirdness that we are qualified to apply to others' faiths. In many cases, it's just a matter of perspective and context.
For example, in our society, we're not used to any degree of secrecy in religion and treat all such things with suspicion. But throughout history, the idea that some knowledge is not shared with the uninitiated has been quite common, even in Judeo-Christian traditions (e.g., talmudic traditions about the ascension of Moses, the apocryphal book of 1 Enoch [considered canonical by many early Christians, including the author of Jude], and some writings of the ante-Nicene church fathers). We call this "weird" now, but only because it's no longer common.
Some Mormons may believe that the garments provide physical protection, but it's not taught by the Church. As a Mormon, I don't personally think I would go so far as to believe that they provide physical protection, but that's just me.
About temple covenants, again, taking things out of contexts make them sound scarier. We covenant to be willing to give all that we have and are to not only to the Church, but also to building up the Kingdom of God generally and to purifying our hearts and furthering God's work. Also, from out perspective, Jesus Christ is literally the head of the Church (not a far stretch, I think, biblically). Hence, from our perspective, our loyalty to Christ's Church is essentially the same as our loyalty to Him. It could sound strange to someone who doesn't share that perspective, but that's how I see it.
We don't engage in exclusion or shaming, but believe that sacred precincts can only be entered by those who are prepared and living certain moral standards. This is again not an idea foreign to either Jewish or early Christian thought, but such an idea of sacred space is foreign to contemporary society. We believe that marriage in the temple brings great blessings. This is certainly taught, but "indoctrination" is a charged word: Any Christian teaching would seem like indoctrination to an outsider. Like many young men, I had a problem with self-stimulation as a youth. I could not partake of the sacrament (following 1 Corinthians 11:27-29). Was there shame involved? Of course--the shame that should follow sin. It was a motivation for me to change my immoral behavior.
"Weirdness" is subjective. What is weird to you is not to me, and vice versa.
Wooget in Phoenix, AZ
Tuesday, June 19, 2012 at 11:30 PM
"they have secret markings that they aren't allowed to tell you what they mean" If you're not Mormon, why would you care? "this are markings plagiarized from the Masons" Mormonism is the restored church of Christ, which existed before the Masons and the Knights Templar. Who is to they they didn't rip them off from us? "there is a lot of belief that these garments provide physical protection beyond just the fabric" Uh, no there's not. One guy on on a clip in a ,movie made by some gay guys with an agenda doesn't constitute "a lot". "Mormons in their temple literally pledge their that they are willing to die and to give all of their possessions to the church - not to God, but to the church" Uh wrong again. I've been to the temple and never did I pledge to die. As for my stuff, all I have comes from God and sure we say we will give it to the church for the building up of God's Kingdom on the earth. I don't think God needs or wants my stuff, derrr... "if you drink coffee you are not allowed to attend your children's wedding in the temple" This should come as no surprise, so which is more important then if one's kids are making wedding plans? Drinking coffee or being worthy to enter what Mormons consider to be the House of the Lord? "A teenager who "touches themselves" is not allowed to partake of the sacrament for a time causing public humiliation and shaming." A member regardless of age having done something that needs to be made right between him/her and God and until they do that, they typically don't partake of the Sacrament. It's not an endeavor to publicly humiliate anyone. In fact, people don't even have to be in with the congregation during the ordinance. You try to make it sound so nefarious, but everything you came up with is crap. You should probably just go back to grinding on your axe.
pete in CA
Tuesday, June 19, 2012 at 6:20 PM
Science is moving ever forward and "discovering the truths of God."
The image on the Shroud of Turin and the cloth Veronica wiped the face of Jesus with have both been referred to as being imprinted as if from a flash of an atomic blast. What technology or force was around 2000 years ago that could produce that effect without destroying the material?
Today we have the technology to imitate virgin birth (artificial insemination and birth via Caesarian section), but with the moral values today it is highly unlikely we could find a woman willing to forego her own physical pleasures for life to prove a higher power, no matter how great the reward.
Craig Price in San Leon, Texas
Tuesday, June 19, 2012 at 8:54 PM
Dennis, you are a bright guy, but nobody can make a logical argument for the ridiculous. Trying to apologize for the idiocy of religion is beyond anyone's capabilities..
And you used some of the most innocous examples of it.
What about Mohammed flying up into the sky on a winged horse? What about Jesus being sacrificed on the cross for our sins? He should have been the only person ever to KNOW there was a heaven,(right?), so where is the big sacrifice? If I could have 100% certainty that there was a heaven, well nail me up right now, today! Sure, tremendous pain for 3 days, but THEN-----!! ETERNAL heaven! WOW!
Your whole thesis is wrong. With religion you are required to have faith in the unreasonable.
Near the end you state that we were better off with more religion. Really? Religion forces you to believe that miracles are possible--,such as winning the lottery, (against all odds and reason), or praying and praying instead of getting up and getting it done!. Just a couple of small example of the destructiveness of religion.
This kind of unreason is a lot like the Muslims and their "It is the will of Allah", no matter what happens, good or bad, so why try!!!
Religion causes people to believe that it is reasonable to believe in unreason. So you are saying that we need more of that? Or do we need more reason?
So much of the strife in the world is due to faith in a God.
Ever read anything by Sam Harris? My favorite of his--"The End of Faith". Craig Price
wjm in Colorado
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 10:05 AM
What in the Hell do you believe in? What defines the rule of law? If you have no faith, then Man decides what is right and wrong? I say you are wrong, and will be enlightened on your death bed. Happy trails you fool.
Just saying in Idaho
Tuesday, June 26, 2012 at 3:31 PM
Craig, people do win the lottery, you know. The odds are long, but it does happen. And the people who pray are also geting up and getting things done. There is no harm in faith in a higher being as long as you don't want to behead someone who doesn't believe like you do. Is it better to have no faith in anything else but government? Is it better for and with the young people with their heads full of mush in the Occupy movement? And it is really disingenious to say that faith in God is the cause of strife in the world. Actually it is exactly the opposite. Since you are an atheist, you don't know that true faith brings one peace, hope, love for their fellow man, charity, not strife.
Army Officer (Ret) in Kansas
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 12:02 AM
Like Craig, I choose not to believe in things that are unbelievable. Such as:
The idea that there was nothing, then nothing went "BANG!," and then there was everything.
The idea that all that congealing nothingness then managed to organize itself into complex systems in the total absence of any physical property which would allow it to do.
The idea that all that self-organized nothingness spontaneously formed itself into self-contained systems with hundreds or even thousands of irreducibly complex and essential sub-systems operating in symbiosis, despite the fact that the odds of that are essentially zero-over-infinity.
That all that evermore complex nothingness came alive, despite the fact that Spontaneous Generation has been as thoroughly disproved as anything can be in science...
...and that it stayed alive...
...and reproduced...
...and turned itself into ever-better versions of itself despite the complete lack of any ability to create new and improved genetic data...
...and branched out into lots of different globs of hyper-organized nothingness that could only survive if a bunch of wildly different types came alive at the same moment in the same location.
But what do I know? I'm just a guy who prefers to refrain from irrationality. Good thing people who reject the theistic religion never cause strife in the name of atheism... The two greatest mass murderers in human history (the atheists Stalin and Mao), are just figments of someone's imagination, of course. Atheists would NEVER slaughter tens of millions of people in the name of THEIR religion... /sarc.
Ricki in Indiana
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 6:29 PM
You just saved me a lot of time. God bless you.
Andy in Raleigh, NC
Thursday, June 21, 2012 at 10:19 AM
Awesome comment, Army Officer (Ret)
Capt. Call in Belen, NM
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 1:30 AM
Army Officer (Ret): Excellent post! You are a man after my own heart!
tdrag in Kennesaw, Georgia
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 8:12 AM
Thanks Army Officer. I would only add that if Spontaeous Generation has happened in the past, why can't we find evidence of it happening today? Say on a field trip to the Everglades you would lift up the branches of a bush and find a human being being formed as you watch. I'll continue to put my faith in Jesus.
Craig Price in San Leon, Texas
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 8:49 AM
Army officer,(and others)-- OK, so since nobody has any idea what happened, and/or how, then it's best to just make up some stuff to make us all feel better and not have to think about death being final and etc.
Where were we before being born? Same place we'll be after death?
None of us can remotely fathom a million years,(and so definitely not the many millions), and what can happen in that amount of time. We can't even agree on what the constitution says and what the founders meant exactly and that was just over 200 yrs! Jesus was 2,000 yrs ago and the bible has been changed by Kings and etc since and we sure don't know what the original intent of much of it was--See the old testament for some really loony and immoral stories, for instance.And not just loony and immoral to me, they will be to you, too, if you read 'em.
Stalin, Mao, and others were atheistic and did what you said. However, most will agree that both were psychopaths/sociopaths and that led to the slaughter.Their main purpose was not to convert/force people into being atheist. As opposed to the religious warriors who killed any"infidel". Christian and Muslim alike. More people have been slaughtered/tortured in the name of some god than all of these guys could have ever done. When's the last time you heard of somebody murdering people because he was an atheist? OK, now when's the last time you heard of somebody killing people for his god? Was it yesterday? Thousands of examples. Atheists value life more than most religious folk as they KNOW this is the only life we get. --I know several atheist men and they are the most logical,(in their whole life), and moral people I konw. All of them are hard working family men with businesses and all of them are long married and have great kids. That just sounds impossible to you guys, right? Morals don't come from the bible. Craig Price
wjm in Colorado
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 10:09 AM
Delusional, and foolish, you mock those who have faith, while you have none. The rule of law supercedes man, You would be a slave to those who of your ilk would enslave you. I find your lack of faith troubling, and you will answer for it in ultimate damnationl. Good luck with that. Good for you and your fellow non believers, in the end you will come to realize the error of your ways.
Andy in Raleigh, NC
Thursday, June 21, 2012 at 10:29 AM
Not just delusional and foolish, but also just plain wrong. I've heard the canard that "more people have been slaughtered/tortured in the name of some god"... so many times.Read "The Black Book of Communism" or "Death by Government". More people were killed by their own governments in the name of atheistic power (in USSR, Cambodia, and China a significant % were explicitly because of their faith in a power other than the govt - thus killed for atheism) in the 20th century alone than were killed for religion in documented history. It's not even close. (http://www.scottmanning.com/content/communist-body-count/) You were right about one thing tho - Morals don't come from the Bible, they come from God. The other statements about Atheists valuing life and atheistic morality are proved incorrect by thousands if not millions of counter examples. Of course you can find examples of moral atheists, just as I can find examples of immoral leaders of faith, but if you look at the trends of societies, you cannot find atheistic societies that continue to become more moral. If a ship loses its compass, it will continue in the right direction from inertia and good ship handling for quite a time - but it will eventually lose course. The atheist men with families - look at their kids. Europe - look at their kids.
Just saying in Idaho
Tuesday, June 26, 2012 at 3:37 PM
Craig, where do morals come from? If you believe in evolution and natural selection, we should all kill the weak among us, not give them welfare. It is funny to me that atheists believe in darwinism, but not when it should be applied to society. Or has natural selection happened in the distant past and for some unknown reason has stopped?
Susan in Houston
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 9:48 AM
The notion that Mormonism is "just another religion" is absurd. It is an all-consuming group that devours families' time, talents, and energies in the name of a 19th-century con man.
Has anyone been to a Mormon temple wedding? I have (before I woke up). Anyone who isn't a card-carrying member (requiring a mandatory 10% tax to the church) is excluded. Fractured families result when someone leaves the clan, and shunning is real.
And ask gay people about the suicide rate among gay teens in Utah, and look at the consumption of prescription anxiety medication in Utah, and the incidence of cosmetic surgery there. It is all about "being perfect."
Mormonism is not benign.
Army Officer (Ret) in Kansas
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 1:27 PM
Hey! Something we agree on! I've studied it some, but you lived through it and came out the other side. Good for you.
Army Officer (Ret) in Kansas
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM
Craig,
I wish I could think you were joking: "Atheists value life more than most religious folk." Yeah... that explains the 50 MILLION or so abortions we've had in the U.S. alone since 1973. (I'm not suggesting that only atheists get abortions - but it is undeniable that the general expulsion of Christianity from the public square in the U.S. coincided with the cultural acceptance of wide-spread abortion, and that few deeply religious women get them for frivolous reasons.) That's why Peter Singer advocates making it legal to kill infants up to three months after birth if their parents don't want them. That's why the two most prolific mass murderers in human history did so in the name of Atheism. While it is probably true that atheists value THEIR OWN lives more than religious folk since they mistakenly think this is all their is - other people's lives? Not so much.
As for, "None of us can remotely fathom a million years,(and so definitely not the many millions), and what can happen in that amount of time." You are simply wrong. Even if the universe were billions of years old (it's not) that doesn't change the laws of physics that govern it. As just one example among dozens: the Earth and Moon are getting farther apart every year. It's not much, but it's enough to be measurable with modern equipment. Given the movement of two bodies in motion, straight-up Newtonian physics dictates that the Moon would have been INSIDE the Earth as recently as 1.3 billion years ago, and no amount of atheist wishful thinking can change that. I don't know about you, but I actually do KNOW that the Moon was not inside the Earth 1.3 billion years ago - yet the atheist creation myth requires the Earth - Moon system to have been stable in its current form for three times longer than that. There are literally dozens of "anomalies" like that. Of course us simple religious folk know they are not anomalies at all - they only get that name because they disprove the atheist creation myth.
Christianity is not based on a cosmology that is known to be false based on the laws of physics. That's atheism.
Susan in Houston
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 10:17 AM
How does Newtonian physics require the Moon to have been inside the Earth 1.3 billion years ago?
The prevailing theory now is that it formed about 4.5 billion years ago.
And I would love to hear your reasoning that the universe is not billions of years old.
Susan Astronomer Houston
Army Officer (Ret) in Kansas
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 11:15 AM
Susan, No problem:
http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/
The article I linked is written in layman's terms, but the references at the end lead to more scholarly publications, which in turn lead to further scholarly publication. The organization that published the link is made up entirely of people with advanced degrees in mathematics and the hard sciences. They have astronomers and physicists who can explain the technical details off line better than I can here.
The idea that the Earth-Moon system is 4.5 billion years old, while important to the Atheist Creation Myth, has too many holes in it to be considered scientific.
I have addressed this topic in great length in other threads here at the Patriot Post, and discussed such things as the implausibility of Spontaneous Generation, the implications of the weakening of Earth's magnetic field, single fossils that span sedimentary layers that are declared to have taken millions of years to deposit, the results of the failed Miller-Urey experiments and what they proved about the formation of amino acids, the fact that the Big Bang Theory violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, the fact that increasing complexity violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, etc.
Since you're an astronomer though, I encourage you to contact icr.org, as their members have the wherewithal to discuss the details in a way that you and I cannot here at the Patriot Post.
Susan in Houston
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 11:40 AM
You are right, I am an astronomer. And looking at the the article you kindly posted, several things strike me.
First, the piece's author had an honorary doctorate in science, hardly the credentials one looks for in cosmology theory. And he did his work in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. That is a long time ago in cosmology theory.
Second, the only link provided as a citation is circular (it leads right back to the same host website).
Third, three of the eight citations are by the author himself, and the most recent non-linked citation is 21 years old, and several are nearly fifty years old. That is forever in the field of cosmology.
If you want to believe what you believe, I think that's great. Feel free. But please don't present it as science. It isn't.
Army Officer (Ret) in Kansas
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 1:13 PM
Fair enough. I didn't go through the citations for that particular article: I just grabbed to first one my search turned up because I know it's been so thoroughly studied. I still recommend you contact ICR, as they restrict membership to people with advanced degrees in hard science and math - they can give you better citations than the one I listed. Mea Culpa: I was in a hurry.
But since you're an astronomer you are acutely aware of the Earth's escape velocity and what that means to the engineers who design space craft. Take a look at the Apollo modules: the bases of the landing gear are HUGE - far bulkier and heavier than they had to be. Why? Simple: we have a pretty good idea about how much stuff the Earth collides with, and based on the observed data, Hans Pettersson figured that the Moon accumulates dust at a certain rate. If the Moon is 4.5 billion years old, the lunar surface should be covered in dust to a degree sufficient to "swallow" a craft that is not equipped with large landing gear. Of course the depth of lunar dust was known to be measurable in inches as early as 1966 because of the Surveyor spacecraft and Earth-bound systems, but nothing dies harder than a theory that attempts to explain things without some pesky Creator to answer to. Thus the addition of precious bulk and weight to give the lunar modules a footprint that would keep them from sinking into a non-existent layer of deep lunar dust. As a scientist, think of all the instrumentation that could have taken the place of those bulky landing pads - pads that were KNOWN to be unnecessary but were included anyway because the disproved theory demanded them.
The required dust just isn't there (I'm going to run out of space, but if you want to discuss the regolith I'll do so later). The "Dusty Old Moon" paradigm was demonstrably wrong by several orders of magnitude. Astronomers are left with two obvious solutions (and a few highly unlikely ones): either they overestimated the rate at which the Moon collects dust by several orders of magnitude, or the Moon is not nearly as old as they think it is. Given what we know about the rate the Earth collides with stuff every day, it seems EXTREMELY unlikely that the dust level estimate should be several orders of magnitude off. Yet secular "scientists" dismiss the second likely possibility out of hand - not based on evidence, but because it doesn't fit what you refer to as "the prevailing theory." Now THAT is not science.
Susan in Houston
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 1:49 PM
No, Hans Peterson's work was enormously preliminary, and probes we later launched (Pegasus, Surveyor) and extensive research has proved the micrometeoroid flux was far lower than Peterson predicted.
Army Officer (Ret) in Kansas
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 2:25 PM
That was kind-of my point. Hans Peterson was WAY wrong, as was proved by the methods we both mentioned. The point is that his conclusion was WILDLY inaccurate partially because his estimate of collisions with cosmic debris was too high, but MAINLY because it was based on the assumption that the Moon is 4.5 billion years old. Obviously other, later people have devised other methods for figuring this out, but none of them can even remotely justify an age of the Moon measuring in the billions of years using empirical data. The question to ask is this: why is the astronomical community SO dismissive of alternate theories that fit the known data better?
Nor have we addressed the increasing distance between the Earth and Moon I brought up originally. Granted, the source was self-referential, but the hard data still stand - the Moon is receding from the Earth at a known rate and we know what causes it. Extrapolating backwards puts the Moon inside the Roche limit far later than 4.5 billion years ago.
Susan in Houston
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 2:54 PM
The astronomical community is based in science. The reason the alternative theories I assume you are promoting ("Young Earth") are dismissed is because they DON'T fit the known data. Peterson was wrong not because the age he was wroking from was wrong, but because he (understandably, given what he had to work with) seriously overestimated dust accretion rates.
The Moon's distance from the Earth has not progressed with linearity.
You are clearly convinced the Earth is younger than it provably is, and I suspect no amount of facts will change your mind.
I have real (scientific) work to do now and can't waste my time trying to explain why you are wrong.