Evidence for Evolution - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Slavakion · 09-09-2004, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sargeman

Along the lines of the Moth story, I read a story many many years ago the lunar landing was also a form of evidence against evolution.

Apparantly the belief was that there would be many feet of moon dust on the surface of the moon over the millions of years of stuff crashing into the moon. So they put those circular things (kind of like snow shoes) on the legs of the lander so when the it landed it wouldn't sink to deep into the moondust. Then much to their (NASA) disbelief the moondust was only a few inches thick.

I don't know if it's true or not but that story has been stuck in my head for a while now.

I'm not sure that I follow. How does this relate to evolution? (I know you read it a long time ago) The moon dust, if created, could have simply floated away. There is only enough gravity on the moon to create an "atmosphere" of about an inch on the surface (or something like that). Any impacts causing rocks to fracture creating dust would most likely throw the dust into space.

tecoyah · 09-09-2004, 02:26 PM

I gotta say....this from the above link....is one of the funniest things I have read in quite a while. More so because the author is serious.

In spite of evolutionists’ assumptions to the contrary, the fossil order can be explained in a creationist framework, which actually avoids some of the contradictions of the evolutionary view.3 The ‘fountains of the great deep’ (Gen. 7:11) would logically have buried small seafloor creatures first. Water plants would generally be buried before coastal and mountain plants. Land creatures would be buried last, especially the mammals and birds that could escape to higher ground. The more intelligent creatures would find a way to escape until the very end, leaving their bodies nearer the surface, where post-Flood erosion would destroy most evidence of their existence. Humans would have been most resilient of all, clinging to debris and rafts, before they died of exposure; their floating bodies would have made easy meals for scavenging fish, so would not have fossilized as readily. Most mammal and human fossils are post-Flood.

Pure entertainment....and worth the read.

Sargeman · 09-09-2004, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slavakion

I'm not sure that I follow. How does this relate to evolution? (I know you read it a long time ago) The moon dust, if created, could have simply floated away. There is only enough gravity on the moon to create an "atmosphere" of about an inch on the surface (or something like that). Any impacts causing rocks to fracture creating dust would most likely throw the dust into space.

Like I said, it was a long time ago, but it was something about space dust collecting on the moon at a certain amount. Over millions of years there should of been many feet of dust on the moon. Let me see if I can find something on the net about it. I may be way out to lunch and telling some stories....

adysav · 09-10-2004, 07:12 AM

Ignore me

joedog5in1 · 09-10-2004, 11:08 AM

Anybody seen Dr (Wannabe) Kent Hovind (Dr Dino) in action? He's kind of convincing, untill you examine his evidence in detail. He is offering $ 250, 000 for any proof of evolution. Only problem is he decides if it is irrefutable or not.

http://drdino.com/index.jsp
Creation Science Evangelism

(If possible find a photo of his family. The one son makes a serious case for post natal abortion)

joedog5in1 · 09-10-2004, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Like I said, it was a long time ago, but it was something about space dust collecting on the moon at a certain amount. Over millions of years there should of been many feet of dust on the moon. Let me see if I can find something on the net about it. I may be way out to lunch and telling some stories....

Some real evidence about the accumulation of dust on the moon can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovi...ea.html#proof2

Paradise Lost · 09-10-2004, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slavakion

I'm not sure that I follow. How does this relate to evolution? (I know you read it a long time ago) The moon dust, if created, could have simply floated away. There is only enough gravity on the moon to create an "atmosphere" of about an inch on the surface (or something like that). Any impacts causing rocks to fracture creating dust would most likely throw the dust into space.

Ahahahahaha... Right, that dust would have to be moving VERY GOD DAMN
FAST and for quite a distance to actually leave the atmosphere of the moon.
I think he's trying to link the moon, and therefore, universal evolution to
that of this planets. Which kind of a weird way to go about it.

I'm not anywhere near convinced that there could be evolution of any kind
on Earth, but there is very scientific, mathematical proof that the universe
evolved in some kind of way. Most Earth-based proof for Evolution is sketchy
at best. Most scientists can all agree that species can adapt, but never
really evolve. If you can even breed outside your own species (not even
different genus' can mate,) how on Earth could anything evolve into... Us.
Up in the top article is even says that mutations only take away traits, they
can't create new ones. So where'd all of our new-fangled contractions such
as ARMS come from.

Not really in the arguing mood, neither side of you
posters are giving any real evidence supporting your claim to be either an
evolutionist or creationist, and just throwing out articles that may or may-not
refute something. (Not saying I have any evidence either, just logically-
supported statements.) I like philosophy. Neither really Creationist nor
Evolutionist, just Pure, gotta love that.

(And to all you guys saying that one thing really doesn't
show much -- if you found something, that mathematically disproves
something in Relativity, wouldn't it be wise to say that maybe Relativity is
wrong, or at least not-yet complete?)

tecoyah · 09-11-2004, 04:05 AM

Any Physicist will tell you Relativity is an incomplete theory. String theory , and Quantum Mechanics have shown the deficiencies. That is not to say it should be disreguarded, as it has lead the way to these theories......guess you could accurately say they Evolved from it.

Keso · 09-11-2004, 07:04 AM

It seems there's one fundamental mistake people seem to be making. When one finds incompleteness and inaccuracy in a scientific theory, it is not "disproven" and it is not abandoned. An example previously discussed here is the theory of relativity. It did not replace Newton's theory of physics; rather, it expanded on that theory to allow physics to explain new phenomena that Newtonian mechanics couldn't explain properly. This does not mean that the "old" Newtonian model isn't correct, it's just limited to specific cases (like when you're not moving at the speed of light). Relativity explains Newtonian physics and more. That's what makes it a better model than the Newtonian one.

In the same way, Darwinian evolution theory has been expanded and elaborated upon by loads of scientists. Some of his assumptions have been disproven, some have been found too simplistic, etc. And yet people seem to believe that the theory of evolution that is used in biology today is exactly the same as the one presented in "The Origin of Species" 100+ years ago.

Creationists can attack Darwin all they want; anything they can say against his models of evolution has already been said by evolutionary biologists. As a scientist, you do not completely abandon a theory once some experiment has been found to "disprove" some element of it (no matter what Karl Popper may say!). Instead you work to develop the theory so that it better fits the reality around us - not the other way around, as Creationists seem to be trying to do.

adysav · 09-11-2004, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paradise Lost

Most scientists can all agree that species can adapt, but never really evolve. If you can even breed outside your own species (not even different genus' can mate,) how on Earth could anything evolve into... Us. Up in the top article is even says that mutations only take away traits, they can't create new ones. So where'd all of our new-fangled contractions such as ARMS come from.

As much as I hate to hurt a person's feelings, you're just flat out wrong.

I'm glad you feel comfortable speaking on behalf of "most scientists", but let's see some evidence to back up that statement, mmm?

If you read the top of the article, the statement in the article that mutations take away traits and can't create new ones is an example of a false (untrue, incorrect) claim made by opponents of evolution.
If you read the paragraph below it, you'll see there's also an explanation.

09-09-2004, 02:26 PM	#42 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	I gotta say....this from the above link....is one of the funniest things I have read in quite a while. More so because the author is serious. In spite of evolutionists’ assumptions to the contrary, the fossil order can be explained in a creationist framework, which actually avoids some of the contradictions of the evolutionary view.3 The ‘fountains of the great deep’ (Gen. 7:11) would logically have buried small seafloor creatures first. Water plants would generally be buried before coastal and mountain plants. Land creatures would be buried last, especially the mammals and birds that could escape to higher ground. The more intelligent creatures would find a way to escape until the very end, leaving their bodies nearer the surface, where post-Flood erosion would destroy most evidence of their existence. Humans would have been most resilient of all, clinging to debris and rafts, before they died of exposure; their floating bodies would have made easy meals for scavenging fish, so would not have fossilized as readily. Most mammal and human fossils are post-Flood. Pure entertainment....and worth the read. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

09-10-2004, 07:12 AM	#44 (permalink)
adysav Insane	Ignore me Last edited by adysav; 09-10-2004 at 11:01 AM..

09-11-2004, 04:05 AM	#48 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Any Physicist will tell you Relativity is an incomplete theory. String theory , and Quantum Mechanics have shown the deficiencies. That is not to say it should be disreguarded, as it has lead the way to these theories......guess you could accurately say they Evolved from it. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha Last edited by tecoyah; 09-11-2004 at 07:55 PM..

09-10-2004, 11:08 AM	#45 (permalink)
joedog5in1 Upright	Anybody seen Dr (Wannabe) Kent Hovind (Dr Dino) in action? He's kind of convincing, untill you examine his evidence in detail. He is offering $ 250, 000 for any proof of evolution. Only problem is he decides if it is irrefutable or not. http://drdino.com/index.jsp Creation Science Evangelism (If possible find a photo of his family. The one son makes a serious case for post natal abortion)

09-11-2004, 07:04 AM	#49 (permalink)
Keso Upright	It seems there's one fundamental mistake people seem to be making. When one finds incompleteness and inaccuracy in a scientific theory, it is not "disproven" and it is not abandoned. An example previously discussed here is the theory of relativity. It did not replace Newton's theory of physics; rather, it expanded on that theory to allow physics to explain new phenomena that Newtonian mechanics couldn't explain properly. This does not mean that the "old" Newtonian model isn't correct, it's just limited to specific cases (like when you're not moving at the speed of light). Relativity explains Newtonian physics and more. That's what makes it a better model than the Newtonian one. In the same way, Darwinian evolution theory has been expanded and elaborated upon by loads of scientists. Some of his assumptions have been disproven, some have been found too simplistic, etc. And yet people seem to believe that the theory of evolution that is used in biology today is exactly the same as the one presented in "The Origin of Species" 100+ years ago. Creationists can attack Darwin all they want; anything they can say against his models of evolution has already been said by evolutionary biologists. As a scientist, you do not completely abandon a theory once some experiment has been found to "disprove" some element of it (no matter what Karl Popper may say!). Instead you work to develop the theory so that it better fits the reality around us - not the other way around, as Creationists seem to be trying to do.