Debunking "the moon isn't natural" claim
In this debunking blog, I debunk a video claiming that the moon is not natural and could only be there because of "Intelligent Design".
Please note that NOTHING in my rebuttal is anti-your-religion (whatever your religion may be, if any). It's not anti religion in any way, shape, or form. Please do NOT continue reading any further until you have FULLY digested that statement!
I will answer questions posed in the original video and will respond to claims made. My responses will be based on known and provable facts. At no time will I say or imply that whatever religion anyone may or may not believe in is false. That's NOT what this post is about. It's about logic and facts that CAN co-exist with whatever religion you choose to follow, if any.
Disclaimer:
I'm not posting a clickable link to the video because I'm not going to help the video creator monetize his bad information. However, I've left in the image below, the link that, if you're truly interested, you can retype into your browser.
Below, I'll enter quotes (or paraphrases, that might have quotes around them) of things said in the video, followed by my response.
The video begins with a man claiming of the moon that it...
"conveniently appears in the sky"?
"Conveniently"? Where ELSE would the moon be? Also, why is that "convenient"? What's the significance of saying that? How does he think that's "convenient" for either side of the argument?
He claims that it's convenient that the moon is...
"an object to provide light for the night time".
Wait, "TO" provide? Implying intent? No. Its light is very low and not very convenient. And it only provides minimally useful light for a night or two of the month and ONLY if weather conditions are right. In short, it's kind of rare for it to "provide" light of any use.
"What are the chances of that?" (regarding the moon's existence)
Well, considering the earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and even Pluto all have moons, then the odds are pretty high. Of our nine (yes, I consider Pluto a planet! :) planets, only two don't have moons. 7 of 9 planets do. The odds then, are 78%. And Jupiter and Saturn have dozens of moons... some big enough to be planets in their own right. So, the odds are very high just from sampling the planets and moons in our own solar system.
And he goes on to deny that stars are distant suns by saying, from one religious book, that they were put there for "lesser light for earth's night time". A couple problems with that:
1. Even if they WERE "put there for lesser light for earth's night time", that doesn't mean they're NOT distant suns. There's no reason (from a religious perspective) that they con't BOTH be true at the same time.
2. They are absolutely distant suns. Most of them even have planets, also proven. We can even determine the chemical make up of those stars and are now imaging stars with enough resolution to see surface features on them. We can also measure the distances to them. And given their distance and their sizes as viewed from earth, we know how big they are. They are the size of our sun, and many are thousands of times bigger than our sun.
3. Stars (other than our sun) provide NO useful light at all to human eyes, aside from navigation aides. On rare occasions, a distant sun will go supernova, lighting up our night time sky for a few days. This only happens once every 10,000 years or so.
"What are the odds of these objects keeping perfect track of time?" (referring to the sun and the moon)
Again, a couple of problems with the implication of that question.
1. The odds are nearly 100%.
2. Except they don't keep "perfect" track.
To be more precise, THEY don't "keep" track. WE do, by USING their perceived movement in our sky as predictably timed events. It's actually the earth's rotation that we use for timing, not the sun. And that's mostly true with the moon too, except the moon also revolves around the earth, so we can check that timing too.
And what are the ODDS that they'd be useful for timing? 100%. Why? Because rotation of large objects in space can't easily vary, nor can revolutions of them around larger objects. Simple Newton's laws of motion: Any object in motion, remains in motion unless acted upon by an external force. This includes objects moving in a straight line in space, objects in orbit, and objects that are rotating.
Regarding the moon: "what are the odds of it always facing us at all times?"
I'll presume he meant the SAME SIDE always facing us, because "A" side has to be facing us at any time. So, regarding the odds of the SAME SIDE always facing us is again, 100%. Why? It's called "tidal lock". It's a known and demonstrable feature of any object orbiting another that is not 100% perfectly balanced in its mass across its entire body. These irregularities get tugged during their rotation and eventually cause the rotation to come to a stop relative to the object they're orbiting. The earth is doing it too in its rotation. The earth's rotation is slowing down relative to the sun. All planets are slowing down in their rotations. This is a very well known phenomenon. It's so well understood that I, myself, discovered it by pure logic as a teenager before I even know it was a known and named thing.
Then he says that the astronauts that landed on the moon "just happened" to land on places facing us. No, they didn't "just happen". Those places were CHOSEN... BECAUSE they face us. Communication with earth required it. If they'd landed on the far side of the moon, the moon itself would have blocked any communication signals.
Earth too low in moon photos
Then he refers to pictures of the earth in the moon's sky, claiming that the earth was too low for the places the astronauts were. The image he shows on the left is CLEARLY from lunar orbit, NOT ON THE SURFACE!!!! He also claims the astronauts would have to look straight up to see the earth. No. They would NOT have to look DIRECTLY UP. The further away from the center of the moon (as viewed from earth) they are, the lower earth would be in their sky. This is basic, common sense and geometry.
This rebuttal covers only the first 2 minutes and 24 seconds and I've got to get to work. Based on this, the rest of the video isn't worth reviewing.