🚀 go-pugleaf

Sorry for my having to repost this revised contribution, as it's
merely the best that I can manage, though I most certainly could post
a few more of these revisions if that would help in getting my message
across.

Apparently our "jessica.lover" of "sci.bio.evolution" is having
another one of those all-knowing and/or 'I'm God' bad sort of
moderator days, especially when the likes of myself comes along and
simply refuses to get into their all or nothing status quo box, or
else.  It seems they can topic/author stock and summarily bash upon
and otherwise trash and insult the intelligence and sincerity of
anyone, however it's perfectly clear that their victim(s) are not
allowed to return the same warm and fuzzy favor with all the love and
affections that we can muster.

On Apr 13, 10:18 pm, "jessica.lover...@gmail.com"
<jessica.lover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm very confused by both of your posts, what are you claiming/
> arguing?  Are you not a native english speaker?  I will try to offer
> some information that I think answers your questions, but your
> language is very convoluted.

This following is me going Usenet postal.

"Are you not a native english speaker":  Are you folks not quite past
the level of a 5th grader?

Of being "convoluted" is just myself being downright honest and
otherwise a touch dyslexic along with having a good sense of remorse
pertaining to our past, present and future that's not exactly looking
good.  Sorry about all that, of my not keeping a straight enough butt-
crack, as I'd have to lie through it in order to suit your silly
terrestrial all-or-nothing and otherwise Old Testament approved
evolution that apparently happened as only here on Earth and in a very
short span of time none the less, and otherwise of my not supporting
that silly notion that supposedly we're such a one-of-a-kind
intelligent species that's existing within their mostly white and
Jewish universe mindset.

In case it has somehow slipped over each of your faith-based heads of
naysayism;  I do not believe in your holy grail of what and of how we
humans came about, especially since complex evolution takes longer
than Earth is old, and therefore planetology and of its complex
humanity along with even more so complex other life that's surrounding
us, as entirely limited to Earth and of whatever satellite/moonology
as we know it, is 100% at risk of getting nuked by way of Guth going
postal.

>
> The moon most likely formed when a mars sized object hit the earth at
> a grazing angle, the impactor was destroyed and a big chunk of the
> earth's mantle was knocked off, all the bits of the impactor and the
> chunk of earth cooled down and gravitational collapsed to form our
> current moon.   This happend about 4.533 billion years ago, based on
> dating of the moon.

Sorry, but your supposed physics and science of "most likely" doesn't
quite cut it for many others or myself.

You folks are clearly not playing along with the honest intent or jest
of my topic, are you.  What other sorts of truths are you folks so
deathly afraid of?

Are you folks afraid that we're not exactly alone?

Are you afraid that we're not the one and only alpha species?

Are you afraid that human DNA/RNA cant not advance to the next level?

>
> Recorded history began around 8,000 BC

That simply is not the least bit true, is it.  What's worthy of
recorded history has nothing to do with words, math or science in any
form that'll ever suit those intent upon excluding whatever evidence
rocks their boat, and I'd be glad as to offer any number of analogies
as for supporting that perception or notion of mine.

>
> so I'm not sure what you mean by "human associated evidence".
> There is plenty of oral mythology from before 10,000 BC that
> mentions the seasons and tides.

Please do show and tell, as thus far you're obviously the only one as
having such objective science.

I never once said Earth had 'NO SEASONS' or much less having 'NO
TIDES' before having obtained our icy and obviously salty old moon,
did I.  Ever heard of a solar tide?  Ever heard of an elliptical
orbit?

> Is that what you are looking for?

Yes, at least in a way it is, and please do share, such as perhaps
including as of 15,000 BC might be a good enough start, whereas a
given picture from that era is worth a thousand if not a million
words.  Usually of whatever mythology that had sufficient meaning had
also been included within their drawings and carvings.  Therefore,
when exactly was the first moon depicted or otherwise noticed by those
intelligent humans, that were actually very skilled at surviving, and
of so much more than surviving as mere heathen/animal status.

>
> There is physical evidence of seasons and tides in the geological
> record that go all the way back to the formation of the moon.

To what degree of tides and seasons?  As otherwise that's all entirely
subjective science, isn't it.  Without purely objective proof, you've
got less than squat in support of that mainstream analogy that Earth
always had such an unusually massive and nearby moon to deal with,
though perhaps we should exclude the possibility that a lesser moon or
two couldn't have once upon a time existed because, such stuff of
gravity does from time to time manage to bump into one another,
doesn't it.

>
>  What do you mean by "the realm of their icy environment"?

I'd have to suppose an ice age seems to qualify as an "icy realm" (as
much or at times more than a 50% icy and otherwise of a frosty cold
Earth with a much higher degree of reflective albedo sounds about
right).  Actually, there were many such horrific ice ages, each having
been a touch worse off than the other as going back in time.  Ever
heard of such crazy things?

Since I clearly do not believe in your infomercial koran of whatever's
mainstream, so why are you into asking such many silly questions, when
instead you could have been constructively answering upon a great many
of my questions on behalf of supporting my topic (not against it).

In case you sci.bio.evolution/(M) folks didn't take notice, this is
not another topic about polishing your mainstream status quo door
knob.  It's more about kicking sci.bio.evolution/(M) butt that's
simply way more all-knowing and sanctimonious than deserved.

>
> Antipodes aren't a real geological occurence, it is just a term to
> define the point ont he earth opposite of you.  There is no relation
> in geology that goes through the center of the earth.  And your
> assumption that "Earth's surface environment simply didn't become as
> physically morphed with ocean basins and antipodes, nor as  wet and
> salty as it is from within," is just flat out wrong.  The morphology
> of the earth comes from plate tectonics.  The wetness and saltiness
> comes from the planetoids that formed the earth, the are very rich in
> water and more complex molecules as evidenced by current asteroids.

Without our truly impressive, far too unusually massive and extremely
nearby moon that doing us far more harm than good, Earth simply would
not have all that much in plate tectonics to work with, would it.

Take away that moon and good old proto-Earth becmes extensively
smoother (somewhat planet Mercury like).  If there's still enough
salty water to go around, there's hardly if any dry land to spare.

Secondly, our once upon a time icy proto-moon is still rather salty,
don't you think?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/363105.stm
"There are less than 50 atoms of sodium per cubic centimetre in the
atmosphere just above the surface of the Moon," says Jeffrey
Baumgardner, of Boston University's Centre for Space Physics.
-

I believe that BBC reported science is off by at least a factor of 10
fold, in that it's more than likely worth 500 sodium atoms/cm3 near
the surface, if not as great as 5000 atoms/cm3 on the badly roasted to
death sunny side of that salty old moon.  By way of other established
methods, that nifty comet like trail of sodium extends past the
900,000 km mark, whereas our detection methods fades out at supposedly
5 sodium atoms/cm3 (though even that much could be a skewed lowball
accounting because, at 900,000 km of even those 5 atoms/cm3 would tend
to reverse interpret as to that roasted and continually micrometeorite
impacted surface of having been continually placing such sodium into
such a thin atmosphere, as worthy of considerably more than 5000
sodium atoms/cm3 to start off with).

In other words, most Usenet folks (especially of those in moderated
cult groups) are simply chuck full of themselves, along with all of
that faith-based analogy that's so capable of excluding any other
evidence on the fly sort of speak, such as rejecting whatever's based
upon the regular laws of physics and of all the best available
science, as opposed to their continually promoting of whatever's based
upon of those conditional physics and of their highly selective
science of mostly infomercials that's in support of their mainstream
mindset, thus having systematically excluded all that has mainstream
boat rocking potential.

If only their side gets published and/or hyped along by way of their
very own mainstream media and textbooks, then where's the other side
of this argument getting its fair share of public exposure?
-
Brad Guth