Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol, relax dude, its fine, no apology necessary, what you doing on the net, you should be out in your favourite place, with people that you love and who love you, not jousting with this mottely crew of half baked lunatics, vagabonds, drummers and mathematicians 🙂

Thanks.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
My mistake Robbie, I do apologise. It is RJHinds I intended to berate on his 2 arguments: moon dust and coal. The moon dust argument was admitted to be crap by Answers in Genesis 20 years ago. after that fiasco, I am not even going to bother looking for confirmation of the coal assertion. I will simply assume he is talking out of his arse again, unless he pr ...[text shortened]...
RJHinds on the other hand, [b]is either a liar or a fool on this occasion.

--- Penguin.[/b]

Probably a small point, but it's worth pointing out, in my opinion. When a person committed to evolution completely abandons a position, it is called progress in the name of "the"Reveal Hidden Content scientific method, whereas when a person committed to finding God's fingerprint on the creation abandons a position, it is called a fiasco.

Just saying.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Probably a small point, but it's worth pointing out, in my opinion. When a person committed to evolution completely abandons a position, it is called progress in the name of "the"[hidden]as has been discussed within these threads previously and exhaustively, we cannot accurately accept placement of the definite article in the beginning of the phrase 'the s fingerprint on the creation abandons a position, it is called a fiasco.

Just saying.

Fair point, but I did not mean that the abandonment of the argument by creationists was a fiasco. I meant that RJHinds putting it forward as an argument, 30 years after it had been recognised as invalid by creationists, and my subsequent search for a source for the argument, leading me to expose him as either misinformed or deliberately deceitful, was a fiasco.

Does that make it a little less ambiguous? And I probably chose the wrong word to describe it. Maybe I should call it a wild goose chase.

I think it is a most definite progress that the creationists (with the exception of RJHinds) have recognised the problems with the moon dust argument and abandoned it, much like science does when new data becomes available that contradict current theories.

I have just noticed the stuff you put between "hidden" tags. I am happy to re-open that discussion if you like. Here's the thread:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=80423&page=1

This is the text of the last post in the thread:

It may be generic and people may frequently fail to follow it but it is a method and there is a consensus on what it is and there is not any competing method. Google it or look in any science textbook that describes it and you will find the same method described.

Show me another method that conflicts with the one I described way back and that has backing in the scientific community and I will concede the issue. Otherwise you have no basis on which to stand by your statement other than that you would like it to be so.

--- Penguin

Maybe in the intervening 3.5 years, you have come across a competing method with support from the scientific community?

--- Penguin

Originally posted by Penguin
From Answers in Genesis:

[b]Most NASA scientists, in fact, were convinced before the Apollo landings that there was not much dust likely to be found there.

Do you have ANY evidence that Neil Armstrong was concerned about the thickness of moon dust or are you again regurgitating crap that your own side abandoned nearly 20 years ago?
...[text shortened]... hod is so powerful: it is the best way we have of finding out when we are wrong.

--- Penguin[/b]

That is the answer he gave to the question Bob Hope asked him.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course not. Its just heresay. Without references I have no way of knowing whether or not your source just made it up. You probably have no way of knowing either - which is why you didn't provide references. You know that if you do, someone will look it up and explain to you why it is not correct - as happened with your claim regarding cosmic dust.
Of ...[text shortened]... r lie to post. For some reason you believe that lying to support your religion is a good thing.

In answer to Bob Hope's question, did not Neil Armstrong say his greatest
fear was the moon-dust layer that scientist had told the astronauts to expect?
Until you can prove he did not say this, how can you honestly accuse me of
lying or being intellectually dishonest, as you are prone to do when you do not
agree with someone?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
but if scientists are not always right, why can't the "scientists" that don't believe in evolution be proven wrong in time?

That is logically true. But since I believe what the Holy Bible says about
God as the creator, I can not see how evolution can be true.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is logically true. But since I believe what the Holy Bible says about
God as the creator, I can not see how evolution can be true.

god created the heavens and the earth. god created the animals and the plants.
it doesn't freakin say how. not even literalists like robbie (i don't know how he can say the bible is 100% true but still believe in old earth and not stone adulterers to death but thats another story) don't believe in young earth.

so with the bible not explaining how in fact did god create stuff, they, you, would rather believe it was magic rather than a theory that makes sense. because god is much more awesome if he makes stuff through magic rather than trigger a logical process which takes millions of years. because millions would take too long for a god that is eternal and time means nothing to him.

Originally posted by RJHinds
In answer to Bob Hope's question, did not Neil Armstrong say his greatest
fear was the moon-dust layer that scientist had told the astronauts to expect?
Until you can prove he did not say this, how can you honestly accuse me of
lying or being intellectually dishonest, as you are prone to do when you do not
agree with someone?

Well considering that you provided no links to back up your claims and we were left to our own devices, and that a search for 'Moon Dust' came up with creationist websites which said that the moon dust argument was abandoned 20 years ago and should not be used, I think it was not unreasonable to assert that you were either lying or foolish.

Having now done another search for "bob hope neil armstrong moon dust" I came up with this:
http://www.creationism.org/ackerman/AckermanYoungWorldChap01.htm

which spouts the same arguments, at the end of which (in a 2002 update) it says:

A recent review of the latest and best evidence by creation scientists Andrew A. Snelling and David E. Rush indicates that there is much less dust in the earth-moon vicinity that earlier estimated. As a result most creationists now believe that the moon-dust argument should not be used.
...
This author agrees with the position of Answers in Genesis and does not currently use the moon-dust argument.

So you may only be 9 years behind the times! I can't find any other reference to this exchange with Bob Hope so I am not sure whether it actually took place or, if it did, whether it was said in jest.

However, I will conceed that I may have been a bit harsh calling you a liar. Sorry Maybe 'not very thorough in your research'. Maybe 'Cherry picking'.

I am not sure now what it is you were trying to argue now. Clearly not that the level of dust on the moon implies a young moon because that has clearly been debunked years ago. Is it that scientists change their theories when new evidence invalidates the current theory? If so then that's not really news, just the scientific method at work.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
god created the heavens and the earth. god created the animals and the plants.
it doesn't freakin say how. not even literalists like robbie (i don't know how he can say the bible is 100% true but still believe in old earth and not stone adulterers to death but thats another story) don't believe in young earth.

so with the bible not explaining how in fac ...[text shortened]... because millions would take too long for a god that is eternal and time means nothing to him.

But the Holy Bible does say that God made the different "kinds" and
that they are to reproduce after their "kind". Evolution teaches that
all the "kinds" have one common ancestor. They have a common
designer and maker but they did not evolve from one common ancestor.
And just because a chimpanzee has many genes in common with man
does not make him our relative. He was simply designed and made by
the one common designer, God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
In answer to Bob Hope's question, did not Neil Armstrong say his greatest
fear was the moon-dust layer that scientist had told the astronauts to expect?
Until you can prove he did not say this, how can you honestly accuse me of
lying or being intellectually dishonest, as you are prone to do when you do not
agree with someone?

Because you have given no references to support that claim. This suggests you have something to hide. You are dishonest.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But the Holy Bible does say that God made the different "kinds" and
that they are to reproduce after their "kind". Evolution teaches that
all the "kinds" have one common ancestor. They have a common
designer and maker but they did not evolve from one common ancestor.
And just because a chimpanzee has many genes in common with man
does not make him our relative. He was simply designed and made by
the one common designer, God.

...

but the holy bible tells us that should a man rape a girl, he is required to marry her and not divorce her instead of rotting in jail.

it also teaches us that genocide in god's name is awesome, we should kill anyone of different religion than us, it was ok for lot to offer his daughters as rape material to the citizens of sodom who wanted to rape the angels, and adulterers should be target practice for big rocks.

Originally posted by Penguin
Well considering that you provided no links to back up your claims and we were left to our own devices, and that a search for 'Moon Dust' came up with creationist websites which said that the moon dust argument was abandoned 20 years ago and should not be used, I think it was not unreasonable to assert that you were either lying or foolish.

Having now don If so then that's not really news, just the scientific method at work.

--- Penguin.

Did you read my post on the Poynting-Robertson Effect? It is a
similiar idea that indicates our solar system cannot be very old
because there is still a large amount of cosmic dust still in outer
space without the disperion effect predicted by the Poynting-
Robertson Effect. And it is the fact that our solsr system is not
the 4.5 billion years old, estmated by the evolutionary scientists,
that accounts for the small layer of cosmic dust found on the moon.
So somebody was lying after the fact, and I don't think it was Neil
Armstrong.

Addition: Did you see the pictures of the Lunar Lander where they
added those duck-feet landing pods to the long legs so that it would
safely settle down without sinking into the theorized dust layer.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Did you read my post on the Poynting-Robertson Effect? It is a
similiar idea that indicates our solar system cannot be very old
because there is still a large amount of cosmic dust still in outer
space without the disperion effect predicted by the Poynting-
Robertson Effect. And it is the fact that our solsr system is not
the 4.5 billion years old, es ...[text shortened]... d on the moon.
So somebody was lying after the fact, and I don't think it was Neil
Armstrong.

without a reference link, that has the same value as you reciting your grocery list.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
without a reference link, that has the same value as you reciting your grocery list.

Why is it that i have to give a reference for every thing I say?
What makes a reference more important than my word?
Any reference I gave would only be the word of someone else.
You seem to accept anything another person says without
references as long as they agree with you. Other times when
I have given references, you guys would not accept them
anyway. So I gave all the references you need right in my
post. Look up the names of the astronomers and the
Poynting-Robertson Effect and the moon landing if you need
or want more information.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why is it that i have to give a reference for every thing I say?
What makes a reference more important than my word?
Any reference I gave would only be the word of someone else.
You seem to accept anything another person says without
references as long as they agree with you. Other times when
I have given references, you guys would not accept them
any ...[text shortened]... s and the
Poynting-Robertson Effect and the moon landing if you need
or want more information.

There are other effects besides the Poynting-Robertson to consider:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/space_dust.html

edit: incidentally one might also question Harold Slusher's credentials:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html