Originally posted by AcemasterAs scott pointed out your figure is absurd. The actual postulated figure is more like 1.5m an hour. However, this isn't actually true.
The sun is shrinking at about 40 million miles a day. Give me the link to the NASA website and I'll check it out.
Read http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html. It explains in great detail how the mistake was made and the actual facts.
Originally posted by XanthosNZExcellent find.
As scott pointed out your figure is absurd. The actual postulated figure is more like 1.5m an hour. However, this isn't actually true.
Read http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html. It explains in great detail how the mistake was made and the actual facts.
Originally posted by AcemasterHere, I don't feel like going through this absurdity again and this article throughly demolishes this myth: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_dust.html
I've got another. The dust on the moon. If it was millions of years old, there would have been a lot, but there was only about 2 inches when Niel Armstrong. What say ye?
Originally posted by AcemasterNice try.
I've got another. The dust on the moon. If it was millions of years old, there would have been a lot, but there was only about 2 inches when Niel Armstrong. What say ye?
"It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system."
Snelling and Rush 1993
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html)
Even the Creationists admit that this argument is wrong. Once again you show that you don't have any clue.
Originally posted by The CougarBut not if you are a fan of this thing called logic.
Hi -
I am new to this site, and have read some of the posts in this thread. A site that addresses many of these same questions is:
http://www.answersingenesis.com/home/area/qa.asp
Lots of reading there. Happy reading! 🙂
Originally posted by The CougarYou obviously haven't read very many of the posts in this thread. If you had you'd find that everyone here showing how Creationism is stupid actually knows what they are talking about and aren't going to be convinced by AIG.
Hi -
I am new to this site, and have read some of the posts in this thread. A site that addresses many of these same questions is:
http://www.answersingenesis.com/home/area/qa.asp
Lots of reading there. Happy reading! 🙂
Try reading through the 3000 post Evolution thread.
Originally posted by Daemon SinHi -
I've got a question.
At what point in God's grand scheme of things did he decide to introduce racial variation amongst all us little sinners? If there is no evolution and we're all spliced from the genes of 2 master parents, then where do all the differences in skin colour, facial features, hair and eye colour, height, build, etc. between the various r ...[text shortened]... have the same skin colour, Scandinavians shouldn't be taller and blonder than me, etc...
I do not have a lot of time (can't read 3000 posts) nor do I have much time for emailing; nor am I a scientist, although I've had some science training; nor am I interested in name calling, insults, flaming, etc. To such posts I will not respond. However, I would like to actually answer a question, if I am able to do so.
And the answer to your question is DNA. There is, actually, no such thing as a "race", it's just all different genes being inherited and interacting. One thing you mention is skin color. This variation is controlled by varying amounts of the skin pigment melanin, with more melanin being dominant, and less being recessive. Therefore, people with darker skin tones are more numerous than those with lighter. Simple genetics.
Some traits are controlled by a single gene, called an autosomal, and can either be dominant (stronger), or recessive (weaker). It's the big A, little a, from high school biology.
There is currently some disagreement regarding strictly Mendelian inheritance, as some studies have indicated the possibility that groups of genes can be transferred, called polymorphic segmental duplication. This would throw an interesting twist into genetic predictability, but certainly gives a possible answer to how polygenic traits can be passed from generation to generation, in certain families or lines of animals. It would also explain prepotency.
Regarding evolution (not natural selection, which happens all the time), since DNA is the language that controls the heritable traits in living beings, whether plant or animal, the statistical unlikelihood of the possibility of quantities of positive mutations (if such really exist - forget Sickle cell anemia) all getting together simultaneously to produce a viable change in a necessary life function, like a lung change for example, precludes the logical acceptance of the possibility of evolution.
This explains the desperate search for extraterrestrial life forms...
Anyway, the basic answer to your question is DNA and it's variability.
Originally posted by The CougarI don't have the time to read your crap so I'm going to assume you are just spouting the usual.
Hi -
I do not have a lot of time (can't read 3000 posts) nor do I have much time for emailing; nor am I a scientist, although I've had some science training; nor am I interested in name calling, insults, flaming, etc. To such posts I will not respond. However, I would like to actually answer a question, if I am able to do so.
And the answer to ...[text shortened]... life forms...
Anyway, the basic answer to your question is DNA and it's variability.
Originally posted by The CougarTry telling that to an MRSA victim.
Regarding evolution (not natural selection, which happens all the time), since DNA is the language that controls the heritable traits in living beings, whether plant or animal, the statistical unlikelihood of the possibility of quantities of positive mutations (if such really exist - forget Sickle cell anemia) all getting together simultaneously to produc ...[text shortened]... e a lung change for example, precludes the logical acceptance of the possibility of evolution.