Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon

Wow! would you folks take a look at all the Usenet retractions.
Downright impressive, isn't it, to see all of these mainstream rats
jumping off their own good ship LOLLIPOP.

The moon will never again smack into Earth, that is unless something
Sedna like manages to hit just exactly right, and the odds of that
ever happening are as they say astronomical. If anything, we're
losing our grip upon our salty moon, that's still in the process of
losing mass. Unfortunately, we'll have lost our protective
magnetosphere long before having entirely lost the warm and fuzzy
tidal benefits of our moon.

This following was a reply to a perfectly nifty contribution via
"rick_sobie".
rick_sobie:
There was no moon, or surely, they would have drawn it,
in some cave, at least once. Somewhere you would think.

We seem to have obtained those 10,000 BC and of much older images in
the realm of 15,000 BC, if not a bit older, of such intelligent
produced records sharing perfectly valid indications by way of such
old art as having depicted our environment illuminated by the sun,
though as always w/o moon. The moon became a part of human culture as
of something more recent than 10,000 BC, as did those indications of
folks having to migrate due to the seasonal changes which didn't seem
to be the case before noticing that we had such a moon and those nofty
tides to deal with.

I think the moon for what it really is, might have been depicted
by the short funny people of South America.
http://www.labyrinthina.com/ica146.jpg
http://www.labyrinthina.com/ica147.jpg
I tend to agree. So what's the approximate age of the "Labyrinthina"
moon?

Noah's most recent flood of perhaps 2250 ~ 2350 BC is yet another
indication of Earth having been impacted, and most likely getting our
environment further deposited with additional ice, that which most
likely got here by way of our icy proto-moon, that's also remaining
nearby as a somewhat unusually salty orb. However, besides the
ongoing thaw from the last ice age Earth will ever see, whereas the
original flood(s) of 5,000 ~ 5600 BC or perhaps the initial big one of
9600 BC is what could easily have been derived from the initial impact
by such as an icy proto-moon, as well as for that event having
established Earth's seasonal tilt. By all rights there would have
been multiple secondary shards of that salty ice raining down upon
Earth, whereas from time to time as those massive spacebergs of salty
moon ice having returned via their associated orbital path, returning
to the approximate origin of that initial lunar impact being Earth and
naturally of their own origin being the moon itself. (I'm thinking
Arctic ocean basin forming, as such being one of the more likely
points of initial contact, and in any event it most likely wasn't a
one time icy encounter, meaning there should have been multiple floods
over an extended period of time, not to mention a few antipode events)

Earth's reformation via multiple impacts and of those unavoidable
antipode related events is every bit as real of planetology formation
as it gets. Those massive yet unusually shallow craters upon our moon
(due to that surface having been protected by a thick layer of ice) is
proof positive that such horrific sorts of cosmic or local solar
system encounters did in fact happen. However, mention the Bible and
all of hell breaks lose within most any scientific realm, especially
by way of those pretending at being Old Testament thumpers that claim
to know all there is to know, but only if it's in a very Jewish way.

Here's yet another best effort research paper via "trustbible", that's
worth our considering, as to having shared this alternative view that
happens to include notions of getting Mars involved, of which at best
is only remotely possible. I still don't entirely agree with that
notion of Mars, especially since it's well enough understood that Mars
hasn't even its fair share of salt, although our moon is in fact
somewhat salty and otherwise downright weird about having such an
unusual geology of formation that's clearly not being allowed as
honestly understood, at least not to nearly the extent of what we're
learning about Mars that was apparently a mostly fresh water little
planetology environment before having lost its protective
magnetosphere.
http://www.trustbible.com/noah.htm
I'm not saying the Bible is as trustworthy as we'd like it to be,
however it's certainly next to the best available record of actual
events that took place, along with loads of faith-based
embellishments, with obviously some subjective analogy applications on
behalf of those interpretations, by having improved upon whatever
others likely wanted to believe, because it gave further meaning or
greater importance as to their existence (unfortunately, that's still
the infomercial forced norm as of today, including as to how our
government typically gets whatever published into textbooks, pretty
much as they'd like to stick, as representing their one and only
record of what's not exactly or even remotely accurate as to what
actually happened, or much less honest as to why such things happened)
-
Brad Guth