1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have managed to find a couple of references for you. I don't know what
Because you have given no references to support that claim. This suggests you have something to hide. You are dishonest.
good it will do, since you don't want to believe it anyway.
1. The Rand McNally New concise Atlas of the Universe (London: Mitchell
Beazley Pub. Ltd. [87-89 Shaftesbury Ave., London W1V 7AD], 1978),
page 41
"The theory that the Maria were covered with deep layers of soft dust was
current until well into the 1960s."
2. Robert T. Dixon, Dynamic Astronomy (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall, Inc., 1971), page 149
"The moon was for many years characterized as having a thick layer of
dust covering its surface, into which an object would sink if it landed on
the moon."
Of course it will be easy for anyone to find a picture of the Lunar Lander
on the internet to see how it was modified with the duck feet due to the
concern that it might sink into this dust.
I do not know how to find a reference to the Television show where
Neil Armstrong told Bob Hope that his biggest concern at the time of
the moon walk was the dust layer. I believe the show was called,
"The Bob Hope Show". Maybe, someone with more knowledge than I,
knows how to look this up, if possible. I'm sure there must be an archive
somewhere or some other reference to it. This was a National TV show
in the USA. Can anyone help?
Originally posted by 667joeYou stated, "Evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt."
Your post only shows your lack of education. Evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Your statements only go to show to the world how far out of it you are. A question I have never seen answered is, if there is intelligent design, who designed the designer?
This is what biologist, L. Harrison Matthews, in the forward to the 1971
edition of Darwin's "Origin of Speicies" says
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the
peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it
then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly
parallel to the belief in special creation -- both are concepts which believers
know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."
Matthews, L.H., The Origin of Species, (Introduction) by Charles Darwin,
J.M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., London, 1971, page 10.
Originally posted by RJHindsGee, he sounds SO unbiased. A real objective observer. Yessir, we need more like him.
You stated, "Evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt."
This is what biologist, L. Harrison Matthews, in the forward to the 1971
edition of Darwin's "Origin of Speicies" says
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the
peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it
then a sci ...[text shortened]... cies, (Introduction) by Charles Darwin,
J.M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., London, 1971, page 10.
Originally posted by RJHindsWhy are you bringing up half century old ideas disproven by experience? So what if they thought the moon was made of green cheese, The Apollo missions took care of all that in one swell foop.
I have managed to find a couple of references for you. I don't know what
good it will do, since you don't want to believe it anyway.
1. The Rand McNally New concise Atlas of the Universe (London: Mitchell
Beazley Pub. Ltd. [87-89 Shaftesbury Ave., London W1V 7AD], 1978),
page 41
"The theory that the Maria were covered with deep layers of soft dust ...[text shortened]... some other reference to it. This was a National TV show
in the USA. Can anyone help?
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseThe reason I bring this up is because evolution requires billions or trillions
Why are you bringing up half century old ideas disproven by experience? So what if they thought the moon was made of green cheese, The Apollo missions took care of all that in one swell foop.
of years or maybe even longer to be even plausible to the evolutionists.
Therefore, this is one of the many evidences that testifies of a young
solar system of no more than 10,000 years old, which makes evolution
impossible.
2 edits
Another discovery during the Apollo exploration of our moon that
testifies of a young moon is the high radio activity of the material
found on the moon. Scientist conferring on this in the Fourth Lunar
Science Conference wondered how the moon can be very old and
not be intensely hot or even melting from the accumulation of heat
from the radiation. R.L. Wysong states, "Short-lived U-236 and
Th-230 isotopes found in lunar materials are taken as testimony
for youth. If the moon were of great age, the short-lived isotopes
would have long since decayed and thus be presently absent. Yet
they are not absent, they are in relative abundance. Thus, according
to this method, the age of the moon should be spoken of in terms of
thousands of years, not millions or billions."
R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (Midland, MI:
Inquiry Press, 1976), page 177
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsThat is preposterous. I worked on the Apollo mission, I did Apollo tracking and timing. You probably don't give a crap about what I did but one thing I did do: I was invited to hold a real moon rock in my hand, inside a vault that would look proud at fort Knox.
Another discovery during the Apollo exploration of our moon that
testifies of a young moon is the high radio activity of the material
found on the moon. Scientist conferring on this in the Fourth Lunar
Science Conference wondered how the moon can be very old and
not be intensely hot or even melting from the accumulation of heat
from the radiation. R
R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (Midland, MI:
Inquiry Press, 1976), page 177
I can tell you there was no radioactivity in any of the 800 pounds brought back, no more than anything on Earth.
If you weren't there, don't try to google crap from 35 years ago, a time when the analysis of the rocks were just underway.
Try to google something a bit more contemporary. But you won't since it doesn't suit your built in, no, DUG in, dogma. You are incapable of change, That is what separates the scientist from the fundamentalist, or creationists.
If evidence comes up that totally kills evolution, there will be those who would fight it to the death but that is usually the way of science anyway, a new theory wins out usually because the elder detractors die off and they were the last holdouts.
You could maybe hope for something similar to happen with evolution theory, heck, maybe there will be proof that creationism is right.
I don't follow dogma, I follow the best evidence. If there was good verifiable and falsifiable evidence evolution was full of crap I would go with it no matter where it leads.
You on the other hand, can only tilt one way, no matter what the rest of the scientific community says. You cannot change. I can. That is what separates rationality from dogma.
Try reading this from THIS century about the moon rocks collected by the apollo astronauts:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090717150254.htm
One thing for sure: The moon has no magnetic field like Earth and of course no atmosphere, so all the ions, plasma, Coronal mass ejections, x-rays and so forth hit the moon, BLAM, right on the surface, no shield like on Earth, we seldom get that stuff from the sun so the moon rocks would be chemically altered by all that radiation and other forms of energy.
That does not make them highly radioactive, at best, converting some isotope into another element, transmutation and all that. That is pretty much it.
Of course there would be transuranics on the moon but the apollo dudes just picked up stuff floating around on the surface, they could not dig more than a foot or two into the soil.
BTW, the energy coming from the sun would not be enough to create thick layers of dust either.
Dust usually happens when a meteorite slams into the moon, but the real reason there is not a whole lot of dust is because the gravity of the moon is 1/6th of ours, the collision shoots most of it completely out of the gravity well of the moon and it ends up hitting the earth instead.
Don't know if you knew this, but the Earth gets hit with about 100,000 tons of dust every day. Our atmosphere does not allow much to accumulate, but some of it does slowly drift down to the ground, and some of it came right from the moon, as well as Mars.
Pretty much the same thing there, not much dust, that is to say, not 30 foot deep layers of talcum powderish dust because of the same effect, not much atmosphere, 1/3 of the gravity of Earth, so meteorites that slam into Mars ends up ejecting the hit zone into the solar system, completely out of the gravity of Mars, a good portion of it anyway, and some of those have already hit the Earth, I think something like 1 in 100 meteorites that hit the Earth are from Mars.
So much for your young dust theory.
Originally posted by RJHindsYoutube it or google it
I have managed to find a couple of references for you. I don't know what
good it will do, since you don't want to believe it anyway.
1. The Rand McNally New concise Atlas of the Universe (London: Mitchell
Beazley Pub. Ltd. [87-89 Shaftesbury Ave., London W1V 7AD], 1978),
page 41
"The theory that the Maria were covered with deep layers of soft dust ...[text shortened]... some other reference to it. This was a National TV show
in the USA. Can anyone help?
Manny
Originally posted by sonhouseI didn't see anything in your reference that disproves what Wysong
That is preposterous. I worked on the Apollo mission, I did Apollo tracking and timing. You probably don't give a crap about what I did but one thing I did do: I was invited to hold a real moon rock in my hand, inside a vault that would look proud at fort Knox.
I can tell you there was no radioactivity in any of the 800 pounds brought back, no more than an ...[text shortened]... n 100 meteorites that hit the Earth are from Mars.
So much for your young dust theory.
said.
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseWhat is your answer to the following:
That is preposterous. I worked on the Apollo mission, I did Apollo tracking and timing. You probably don't give a crap about what I did but one thing I did do: I was invited to hold a real moon rock in my hand, inside a vault that would look proud at fort Knox.
I can tell you there was no radioactivity in any of the 800 pounds brought back, no more than an n 100 meteorites that hit the Earth are from Mars.
So much for your young dust theory.
The rotation of the earth is gradually slowing down due to the gravitational
drag forces of the Sun, moon, and other factors. If the earth is billions of
years old and it has been slowing down uniformily, as the uniformitarian
geologist insist, then its present rotation should be zero.
Calculations based on the known recession speed of the moon and a
presumed age of 4 billion years requires the moon to be much farther
away from the earth than it is.
Evolutionists say the radioactive decay processes of uranium and thorium
that produce helium have been going on for billions of years. If so, the
earth's atmosphere should contain much more than the present 1 part in
2000,000 of helium. Realistic calculations disclose the amount of time
required to produce the observed helium is about 10,000 years.
Dr. Henry M. Morris has calculated that the average growth in population
of only 1/2 % per year, which is 1/4 the present rate, would yield the
present human population in just 4,000 years.
Each time a comet orbits the sun, a small part of its mass is boiled off.
Careful studies indicate that this effect on short-term comets would have
totally dissipated them in about 10,000 years. Based on the fact that
there are still many comets orbiting the sun and no source of new comets
known to exist, we can deduce that our solar system is no more than
about 10,000 years old.
Originally posted by JS357I believe in biological evolution, but not to the degree many here do.
I'd like to ask if there are any theists posting here who believe biological evolution occurred, even if guided by God and with a special role for humans? Or, alternatively, who believe that they are free in their faith to believe either version of this story?
I belieive it is limited to each kind, so I do not believe you can get a very basic
life form in the beginning and have it over time turn into all the life we see
today.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAs I have said before, many people confuse "evolution" with "adaption"
I believe in biological evolution, but not to the degree many here do.
I belieive it is limited to each kind, so I do not believe you can get a very basic
life form in the beginning and have it over time turn into all the life we see
today.
Kelly
and/or "mutation". The breeding within "kinds" like with dogs and
horses is not really evolution. And sdaption to the environment is also
not evolution. Some call what you refer to as microevolution, but this
is just to appease the evolutionists. I will not do this and require they
prove evolution to the fullest as per the definition I presented to them.
Originally posted by PenguinIf you predefine 'sensible approach' as something that science and logic only can define but will exclude everything that saints and philosophers have actually experienced,sincerely and selflessly preached to humanity,then I have to admit defeat.
and so science says "we don't know yet and we are trying to figure out an explanation that can be tested". As opposed to religion which pulls a fairy story out of the air and says that's how it happened.
Which approach do you think is the more sensible?
--- Penguin
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoThat is exactly the way he defines it. To him it is not logical to include
If you predefine 'sensible approach' as something that science and logic only can define but will exclude everything that saints and philosophers have actually experienced,sincerely and selflessly preached to humanity,then I have to admit defeat.
God. And to include any thing in the Holy Bible is not science to him.