Simple question.
Is Evolution a Religion?
Is Evolution a Religion?
Moderator: Moderators
Post #31
I don't believe it is correct to say the creationists have never changed their stance on the issue of 'man being formed from the dust of the ground' and it is certainly not the case that creationists have never changed their views or arguments.Sender wrote:Truth is, that stance on our side has never wavered. Evolutionist change their stance on things all the time. Their response is "well we as we discover new things we need to change our theory".McCulloch wrote:Creationists believe that life developed from nonliving materials. "Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground, ... ". Evolutionary science, honestly admits that they really do not know how life started. They are looking into various possibilities. But unlike religion, they do not answer the difficult questions with, "God did it."
Creationists used to insist the no evolution of any kind ever took place, either what they now call micro-evolution or what they call macro-evolution. Many young earth creationists now acknowledge that evolution does occur, as they say 'within kinds'.
Can we please keep to one theory at a time. Biological evolution says nothing about 'energy creating itself.' If you are referring to the Big Bang, this is a separate theory that is independent of biological evolution.True enough, but Gods Word never changes and is always consistent. Going back to energy creating itself, a cornerstone of evolution, yet everyone seems to deny they ever said at one time.
Uhhh. THis is an incredibly mis-guided strawman argument you are erecting. Mainstream evolutionary science does not, nor has it ever, said that 'dog's give birth to non-dogs.' Evolution says just the same as creationists do in this respect. Each being gives birth to beings of its own kind. THe only difference is that evolution takes into account the fact that the 'kind' or 'species' changes slowly over time. THis has been observed both in the present day with respect to quickly reproducing species (e.g. dung beetles) and in the past based on the fossil record. If you seriously think this is what evolution says than I would like to know what your source is.I would like to observe just once a dog giving birth to a non dog as an example.
Post #32
Well, Darwin said things happens gradually, over millions of years. Gould said things happen in quick jumps, saltations( I think) it's called. Which is it?micatala wrote: Uhhh. THis is an incredibly mis-guided strawman argument you are erecting. Mainstream evolutionary science does not, nor has it ever, said that 'dog's give birth to non-dogs.' Evolution says just the same as creationists do in this respect. Each being gives birth to beings of its own kind. THe only difference is that evolution takes into account the fact that the 'kind' or 'species' changes slowly over time. THis has been observed both in the present day with respect to quickly reproducing species (e.g. dung beetles) and in the past based on the fossil record. If you seriously think this is what evolution says than I would like to know what your source is.
Post #33
Proof that the Moon is Young!
by By Ron Calais
(Editor's note: Before we landed on the moon, those who believe that the Earth and moon are billions of years old feared that the moon was covered with deep dust that might swallow a spacecraft. They based this fear on measured rates of dust accumulation in our area of space. If dust had been accumulating at measured rates for billions of years, we could have a problem when we tried to land. Creationists at NASA argued that since the Earth and moon were only about 6,000 years old there was nothing to fear. Not enough dust had accumulated to endanger the landing. After creationists were proven right, and old-age predictions were proven wrong, evolutionists were embarrassed. They tried to deny that they were ever concerned about the depth of the moon dust.)
The "lunar dust controversy" occasionally surfaces in the pages of creation literature. Skeptics continue to question the sources and conclusions published by creationists. Some critics still deny that few if any astronomers ever predicted a thick, unconsolidated layer of meteoritic dust particles on the moon.
1 In fact, dozens of popular science sources that effectively disprove evolutionist's denial.
Dixon,2 for example, in a discussion of the moon's surface texture, writes: "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." He then continues with the observation: "...we have landed numerous spacecraft on the moon and have found the lunar 'soil' to be capable of supporting reasonable loads, with only an inch or two compaction."
Brantey3 had this to say before we landed: "Some astronomers think that, in places, lunar meteoritic dust may be a hundred feet or more deep. Also, it may be so loosely packed that a spaceship would sink into it, never to be seen again."
Science-fiction writer Isaac Asimov4 agreed before there were any landings: "Now it is already known, from a variety of evidence, that the moon ... is covered with a layer of dust. No one knows for sure how thick the dust may be ... the thickness may be great ... and if the moon gets anything like the Earth's supply, it could be dozens of feet thick."
Another 1964 volume on moon science assumes an ancient moon. It says that the amount of dust formed by "erosive forces" acting on the lunar surface materials would "come to an equivalent dust layer of at least 300 feet in thickness, and probably more..."5
This idea of a meteoritic "dust bowl" on the lunar surface was predicted by many astronomers during the years before the Apollo program.6 Their predictions were based on the huge volume of meteor-related debris. Approximately 2,000 tons per day, was accumulating on the Earth. Even though "the moon's surface is smaller than Earth's ... it is large enough so that several hundred tons of meteoric material could 'fall' to its surface daily."7 Assuming the immense age of 4.5 billion years for the lunar orb, and an uninterrupted deposition of dust on its surface, the amount of accumulated dust would stagger the imagination!
Evolutionists search for their missing dust
Contrary to recent claims,8 NASA has published data9 collected by orbiting satellites that confirm a vast amount of cosmic dust reaching the vicinity of the Earth-moon system. It seems there is much more of this debris out there than was once thought.10 So if the moon is as old as astrophysicists believe, there should be the enormous dust load on the lunar surface that many astronomers once believed existed.
Studies to find out past rates of meteoritic dust accumulation on Earth have produced tenuous results. However, some evidence suggests a similar rate of accumulation throughout geologic time.11 There are no data contradicting the idea that influx rates for the moon's surface have remained constant. Therefore assumptions of drastically decreased rates in the past are baseless.
Evolutionists have speculated about the possibility that most of this loose lunar material has somehow been transformed into solid rock. Admittedly this has not been addressed in detail by creationists. Whether such a process is even possible in the moon's waterless environment is irrelevant to this discussion. The fact remains, evolutionary ideas about the age of the moon led astronomers astray in their assessment of the nature of the lunar surface.
Ron Calais is director of the Origins Research and Information Service, 137 Oak Crest Drive, Lafayette, LA 70503.
Copyright © 1992 Bible Science Newsletter.
References:
1. Clark, Maurice. 1984. "Moon Blue?" Ex Nihilo, 2(3)- international ed.
2. Dixon, Robert. 1971. Dynamic Astronomy, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
3. Branley, Franklyn. 1964. Apollo and the Moon pub. for the American Museum-Hayden Planetarium by the Natural History Press, Garden City, N.J.
4. Asimov, Isaac. 1959. "14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year," Science Digest, Jan.
5. Salisbury, Frank and Peter Glaser (editors). 1964. The Lunar Surface Layer. Academic Press, N.Y.
6. Rand McNally New Concise Atlas of the Universe. 1978. Mitchell Beasley Pub., London.
7. Op. cit., Branley.
8. Awbrey, Frank, 1983. "Space Dust, the Moon's Surface and the Age of the Cosmos," Creation/Evolution 4(3).
9. Hawkings, G.S. 1967. "Meteor Orbits and Dust," Smithsonian Contributions to Astrophysics. Vol. 2.
10. Whipple, Fred. 1961. "The Dust Cloud About the Earth," Nature, Jan.
11. Op. cit., Awbrey.
------------------
Evolution theorist needs time to cover their tracks. Heck we are only talking fourty years and look at the lies, people denying they ever said that about the moon dust.
Millions of years certainly can faricate more lies don't you think?
by By Ron Calais
(Editor's note: Before we landed on the moon, those who believe that the Earth and moon are billions of years old feared that the moon was covered with deep dust that might swallow a spacecraft. They based this fear on measured rates of dust accumulation in our area of space. If dust had been accumulating at measured rates for billions of years, we could have a problem when we tried to land. Creationists at NASA argued that since the Earth and moon were only about 6,000 years old there was nothing to fear. Not enough dust had accumulated to endanger the landing. After creationists were proven right, and old-age predictions were proven wrong, evolutionists were embarrassed. They tried to deny that they were ever concerned about the depth of the moon dust.)
The "lunar dust controversy" occasionally surfaces in the pages of creation literature. Skeptics continue to question the sources and conclusions published by creationists. Some critics still deny that few if any astronomers ever predicted a thick, unconsolidated layer of meteoritic dust particles on the moon.
1 In fact, dozens of popular science sources that effectively disprove evolutionist's denial.
Dixon,2 for example, in a discussion of the moon's surface texture, writes: "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." He then continues with the observation: "...we have landed numerous spacecraft on the moon and have found the lunar 'soil' to be capable of supporting reasonable loads, with only an inch or two compaction."
Brantey3 had this to say before we landed: "Some astronomers think that, in places, lunar meteoritic dust may be a hundred feet or more deep. Also, it may be so loosely packed that a spaceship would sink into it, never to be seen again."
Science-fiction writer Isaac Asimov4 agreed before there were any landings: "Now it is already known, from a variety of evidence, that the moon ... is covered with a layer of dust. No one knows for sure how thick the dust may be ... the thickness may be great ... and if the moon gets anything like the Earth's supply, it could be dozens of feet thick."
Another 1964 volume on moon science assumes an ancient moon. It says that the amount of dust formed by "erosive forces" acting on the lunar surface materials would "come to an equivalent dust layer of at least 300 feet in thickness, and probably more..."5
This idea of a meteoritic "dust bowl" on the lunar surface was predicted by many astronomers during the years before the Apollo program.6 Their predictions were based on the huge volume of meteor-related debris. Approximately 2,000 tons per day, was accumulating on the Earth. Even though "the moon's surface is smaller than Earth's ... it is large enough so that several hundred tons of meteoric material could 'fall' to its surface daily."7 Assuming the immense age of 4.5 billion years for the lunar orb, and an uninterrupted deposition of dust on its surface, the amount of accumulated dust would stagger the imagination!
Evolutionists search for their missing dust
Contrary to recent claims,8 NASA has published data9 collected by orbiting satellites that confirm a vast amount of cosmic dust reaching the vicinity of the Earth-moon system. It seems there is much more of this debris out there than was once thought.10 So if the moon is as old as astrophysicists believe, there should be the enormous dust load on the lunar surface that many astronomers once believed existed.
Studies to find out past rates of meteoritic dust accumulation on Earth have produced tenuous results. However, some evidence suggests a similar rate of accumulation throughout geologic time.11 There are no data contradicting the idea that influx rates for the moon's surface have remained constant. Therefore assumptions of drastically decreased rates in the past are baseless.
Evolutionists have speculated about the possibility that most of this loose lunar material has somehow been transformed into solid rock. Admittedly this has not been addressed in detail by creationists. Whether such a process is even possible in the moon's waterless environment is irrelevant to this discussion. The fact remains, evolutionary ideas about the age of the moon led astronomers astray in their assessment of the nature of the lunar surface.
Ron Calais is director of the Origins Research and Information Service, 137 Oak Crest Drive, Lafayette, LA 70503.
Copyright © 1992 Bible Science Newsletter.
References:
1. Clark, Maurice. 1984. "Moon Blue?" Ex Nihilo, 2(3)- international ed.
2. Dixon, Robert. 1971. Dynamic Astronomy, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
3. Branley, Franklyn. 1964. Apollo and the Moon pub. for the American Museum-Hayden Planetarium by the Natural History Press, Garden City, N.J.
4. Asimov, Isaac. 1959. "14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year," Science Digest, Jan.
5. Salisbury, Frank and Peter Glaser (editors). 1964. The Lunar Surface Layer. Academic Press, N.Y.
6. Rand McNally New Concise Atlas of the Universe. 1978. Mitchell Beasley Pub., London.
7. Op. cit., Branley.
8. Awbrey, Frank, 1983. "Space Dust, the Moon's Surface and the Age of the Cosmos," Creation/Evolution 4(3).
9. Hawkings, G.S. 1967. "Meteor Orbits and Dust," Smithsonian Contributions to Astrophysics. Vol. 2.
10. Whipple, Fred. 1961. "The Dust Cloud About the Earth," Nature, Jan.
11. Op. cit., Awbrey.
------------------
Evolution theorist needs time to cover their tracks. Heck we are only talking fourty years and look at the lies, people denying they ever said that about the moon dust.
Millions of years certainly can faricate more lies don't you think?
Last edited by Sender on Mon Jan 16, 2006 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post #34
That's the part I missed...where exactly does the author provide this proof? Highlight it for me, would you Sender?Ron Calais wrote:Proof that the Moon is Young!
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14
Post #35
When they landed there was only an inch of lunar dust on the moon's surface.
Using the formula's NASA used to predict the amount of dust prior to landing, (Assuming 4.5 billion years)they suspected anywhere form several dozen feet up to a mile one scientist predicted.
So the one inch that was actually there didn't poke holes in their formula they used, just the opposite. Using their formula, it comes out to around 6,000 years old, just like the bible says.
Using the formula's NASA used to predict the amount of dust prior to landing, (Assuming 4.5 billion years)they suspected anywhere form several dozen feet up to a mile one scientist predicted.
So the one inch that was actually there didn't poke holes in their formula they used, just the opposite. Using their formula, it comes out to around 6,000 years old, just like the bible says.
Post #36
So the dust below that was packed tight, big deal...Sender wrote:When they landed there was only an inch of lunar dust on the moon's surface.
"However, the lunar soil is not the only meteoritic material on the lunar surface. The "soil" is merely the portion of powdery material which is kept loose by micrometeorite impacts. Below it is the regolith, which is a mixture of rock fragments and packed powdery material. The regolith averages about five meters deep on the lunar maria and ten meters on the lunar highlands." form here.
Wouldn't make much sense to try to land then, would it?Sender wrote:they suspected anywhere form several dozen feet up to a mile one scientist predicted.
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14
Post #37
You have some misunderstandings here.Sender:micatala wrote:
Uhhh. THis is an incredibly mis-guided strawman argument you are erecting. Mainstream evolutionary science does not, nor has it ever, said that 'dog's give birth to non-dogs.' Evolution says just the same as creationists do in this respect. Each being gives birth to beings of its own kind. THe only difference is that evolution takes into account the fact that the 'kind' or 'species' changes slowly over time. THis has been observed both in the present day with respect to quickly reproducing species (e.g. dung beetles) and in the past based on the fossil record. If you seriously think this is what evolution says than I would like to know what your source is.
Well, Darwin said things happens gradually, over millions of years. Gould said things happen in quick jumps, saltations( I think) it's called. Which is it?
Gould was one of the initiators of the theory of punctuated equilibrium. As I understand the theory, it does posit that evolutionary changes did sometimes happen relatively quickly, with longer periods of equilibrium during which the changes within a given population might be small. The key here is that 'relatively quickly' still means. From the link above:
So, punctuated equilibrium is really a form of gradualism. Punctuated equilibrium is in no way contradictory to the overall theory of evolution, but rather is a variation which simply implies that evolution does not occur at a constant rate, but still at a very slow rate.Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with saltationism and catastrophism (and with the phenomenon of mass extinctions), and thus mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism; it is actually more properly understood to be a form of gradualism. This is because even though the changes are considered to be occurring relatively quickly, they are still occurring gradually, with no great changes from one generation to the next. This can be understood by considering an example: Suppose the average length of a limb on a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches, a large amount) over 70,000 years (a geologically short period of time). If the average generation is seven years, then the given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. Thus, on average, the limb grows at the minute, gradual rate of only 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000 generations).
Saltationism would be more the opposite of gradualism, and is as follows:
In biology, saltation (from Latin, saltus, "leap") is a sudden change from one generation to the next, that is large, or very large, in comparison with the usual variation of an organism. The term is used for occasionally hypothesized, nongradual changes—especially single-step speciation—that are atypical of, or violate, standard Darwinian evolution. The unorthodox emphasis on saltation as a means of evolutionary change is called saltationism.
I think Goldschmidt was the main proponent of saltationism, but the theory never gained widespread support even in his day, and today is entirely discredited. Raising saltationism as an issue is nothing more than bringing up a very out-dated strawman.
Why Not Apply the Rules Moderators?
Post #38It is clear that Sender has but one objective, which is to post verbatum via mindless parroting of Creationist propaganda with no intention whatsoever of intelligently debating the topic under discussion for any one thread or respecting the rules of this site.
The question really is, why do the moderators allow this abuse of this forum and site in this manner?
Sender consistently and with absolute disregard for the rules of this site violates the following rules:
The question really is, why do the moderators allow this abuse of this forum and site in this manner?
Sender consistently and with absolute disregard for the rules of this site violates the following rules:
Sender posts off-topic verbatum copy-n-pastes creationist propaganda into threads, with no intelligent discussion of the thread topic under discussion. This effectively turns a debate forum into little more than an spam forum and free for all discussion.Rules of This Forum wrote:(....)
4. Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread.
Sender's ignorant (he does not even understand the actual science behind the topics he spams this board on) cut-n-paste copies provide no real evidence, just unsupported assertions, which is typical for creationist propaganda. This tactic would never stand in any true debate forum.Rules of This Forum wrote:(....)
5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.
It is inflamatory the way he spams a debate thread with cut-n-paste verbatum copies of creationist propaganda that is off-topic for a given thread and refuses to provide evidence or reasoned arguments. This just proves all the more that this site is NOT a debate forum, but a spam board in most cases, as it is allowed to continue apparently unabatted.Rules of This Forum wrote:(....)
7. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages.
This is all Sender is doing; period. He is using this site as a spam board for copy-n-paste creationist propaganda from other sites.Rules of This Forum wrote:8. Extensive quotes from another source (particularly other websites) should state the source to avoid plagarism.
He is simply moving from thread to thread with the same tactic. Spam, move on; spam, move on ...Rules of This Forum wrote:(....)
10. Spamming (duplicate posts, ... etc) is not allowed.
Post #39
Myth:
Our universe is the result of explosive expansion of the "Cosmic Egg" billions of years ago.
Reality:
This just ignores the bigger question-who laid the "cosmic egg"? The first law of thermodynamics proves that matter and energy cannot just appear. Evolutionists must ignore the most basic law of science at the very start of their belief system. Furthermore, explosions do not result in increased organization of matter. Has an explosion ever created ordered complexity?
Myth:
The fossil record proves evolution.
Reality:
There are no transitions between vastly different types of animals in either the living world or the fossil record. Lining up three objects by size or shape does not prove that one turned into the other.
Myth:
Structural and biochemical similarities prove common ancestry.
Reality:
The lack of fossil transition strongly refute this myth. Common ancestry is only one of two possible explanations for similarities. Purposeful design can explain the same features in a more direct way. In addition, totally different organisms often display similar features. This supports the existence of a common designer.
Myth:
The rock layers of the earth form the pages of earth's history showing million of years of evolutionary progression.
Reality:
The fossil record does not show a clear "simple-to-complex" progression of life forms. Life id complex and well developed wherever it is found in the fossil record. Major groups of plans and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record, with nothing leading up to them. Most rock layers and the fossils they contain can be explained better by a worldwide flood and subsequent events.
Myth:
Radiometric dating methods are "absolute." They are accurate and reliable.
Reality:
Although at one time there were dozens of features of the human body listed as vestigial, most have been shown to have important functions. After all, even if a few parts have lost their original function that does not prove evolution. To demonstrate evolution, you need to show the development of completely new structures, not the loss and degeneration of previous characteristics.
Myth:
The fossil record for human evolution is complete and clear.
Reality:
All too often the propagandists for evolution present their story with statements such as, "Every knowing person believes that man descended from apes. Today there is no such thing as the theory of evolution, it is the fact of evolution." (Ernst Mayr) The evidence for human evolution is fragmentary and reconstruction involves artistic license. Many competent scientists totally reject evolution. They acknowledge that it is not even a good scientific theory, much less a fact.
article by Dave Nutting of Alpha Omega Institute.
Our universe is the result of explosive expansion of the "Cosmic Egg" billions of years ago.
Reality:
This just ignores the bigger question-who laid the "cosmic egg"? The first law of thermodynamics proves that matter and energy cannot just appear. Evolutionists must ignore the most basic law of science at the very start of their belief system. Furthermore, explosions do not result in increased organization of matter. Has an explosion ever created ordered complexity?
Myth:
The fossil record proves evolution.
Reality:
There are no transitions between vastly different types of animals in either the living world or the fossil record. Lining up three objects by size or shape does not prove that one turned into the other.
Myth:
Structural and biochemical similarities prove common ancestry.
Reality:
The lack of fossil transition strongly refute this myth. Common ancestry is only one of two possible explanations for similarities. Purposeful design can explain the same features in a more direct way. In addition, totally different organisms often display similar features. This supports the existence of a common designer.
Myth:
The rock layers of the earth form the pages of earth's history showing million of years of evolutionary progression.
Reality:
The fossil record does not show a clear "simple-to-complex" progression of life forms. Life id complex and well developed wherever it is found in the fossil record. Major groups of plans and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record, with nothing leading up to them. Most rock layers and the fossils they contain can be explained better by a worldwide flood and subsequent events.
Myth:
Radiometric dating methods are "absolute." They are accurate and reliable.
Reality:
Although at one time there were dozens of features of the human body listed as vestigial, most have been shown to have important functions. After all, even if a few parts have lost their original function that does not prove evolution. To demonstrate evolution, you need to show the development of completely new structures, not the loss and degeneration of previous characteristics.
Myth:
The fossil record for human evolution is complete and clear.
Reality:
All too often the propagandists for evolution present their story with statements such as, "Every knowing person believes that man descended from apes. Today there is no such thing as the theory of evolution, it is the fact of evolution." (Ernst Mayr) The evidence for human evolution is fragmentary and reconstruction involves artistic license. Many competent scientists totally reject evolution. They acknowledge that it is not even a good scientific theory, much less a fact.
article by Dave Nutting of Alpha Omega Institute.
Post #40
Truth of the matter is I seem to be outnumbered, and that number seems to be growing daily.
Copy and pasting and giving reference is within the rules of this forum. I would rather you guys run around and try to refute these articles, than for me to be blasted with questions that would cause me to run around.
This make the playing field more even IMO, not only that, these articles are true.
Copy and pasting and giving reference is within the rules of this forum. I would rather you guys run around and try to refute these articles, than for me to be blasted with questions that would cause me to run around.
This make the playing field more even IMO, not only that, these articles are true.
