Explain the Trilobite

You have some interesting theories about volcanic activity on the Moon and it certainly does appear the Moon (and other bodies) have experienced some cataclysm.
This would square up with Genesis which does describe a system that is broken and degenerates.

Anyways, I want to tell you that Campbell is tellign you the truth about the Lunar Lander and the previous 'scientific facts' about the Moon Dust.
Now,
That is over because obviously we found out the Moon does not have this much dust as was once calculated by a guy named Peterson.
Ok.
Thats fine.
What happened was that there was enough dust that... IF we used his measurements... would indicate the Moon was about 10,000 years old.
(again, according to his calculations).

But that is over now.
Petersons whole thing has been done away with, is discredited and so on.

Id ask a much more obvious question in the first place - how the hell did the ENTIRE MOON show up to conveniently give us nightlight just when its needed as well as being our Calendar buddy for us to set times and dates with.

Screw the 'dust' on the Moon.. how did the whole freaking Moon appear without a Creator is the better question.

 

Yeah. It was a typo. I meant a nucleus composed of more particles. Sorry about that .

Still though, complexity doesn't depend on simple numbers. However, I am no expert in particle physics. There may be more interactions as the number of subatomic particles increases, but I simply don't know enough to state whether that would compromise a "system". Even so, we generally see a breakdown of atomic structures (i.e. nuclear decay). Outside of stars, I don't know of any process that naturally increases the complexity of atomic structures.

I think that you will have a hard time proving this, or you misunderstood what I meant.

Ummm... okay. Without assuming evolution to be true, can you prove this?

We were talking about the complexity of an organism at the cellular level.

Your source?

Meh, I really don't care though. As I said in the beginning, this is not an issue that is of particular interest to me. I don't really see it as relevant to the more meaningful questions. It is really a side issue as Christians themselves have different views on the subject. For example, I have recently been speaking with my father on the subject. He is a Christian that was a missionary. He also has a PhD in genetics. He corrected some of my understanding of things like genetic drift and evolution on a genetic level.

What I am saying, though, is that the Theory of Evolution isn't a sacred cow for Christians. Fact or false assumption, evolution doesn't really matter that much to the essential beliefs of Christianity.

 

Really?

If evolution and an old universe are the true facts, with or without God as the first cause, then Christianity has no reason to exist.

The cornerstone belief of Christianity is the Fall of Man and consequent Original Sin; for this to be true the literal account of creation in Genesis must be true.

Without Original Sin, there is no compelling need for a single designated "savior".

This is why fundamentalists desperately push Creation Science so hard...without young-earth creationism as widely-accepted fact, their whole theological structure falls apart, and they become irrelevant.

I'm not arguing against Jesus Christ's historic existence, extra-ordinariness, or connection to divinity...but if the Genesis account is not literally true, his role is subject to re-evaluation.

 

Oh man, you are so witty! I mean that just tore down my whole argument right there! Kudos with the informative and thought out response!

But seriously, if you're going to be a shithead please just avoid arguing about things you don't understand. Like evolution. It only makes you look bad.

 

Not so. The story of the Fall must be true to a degree, but not absolutely factual. The entire account reads less like a historical narrative and more like a poetic interpretation of actual events. The creation sets a backdrop, but the creation is not even one chapter of the Bible. The Fall and its ramifications are far more important.

Does it mean that Adam and Eve must have the names "Adam" and "Eve" and must have eaten a literal fruit? No, it might have been that they brewed beer (as one creation account attests) or commited some other act of disobedience.

What is important isn't the literary accuracy of the account, but the factual account in regards to the emphasis of the story. What must be true are these things:
1) God and the progenitor man and woman existed harmoniously together.
2) The progenitors consciously and of their own free will chose to disobey and dishonor God.
3) This breaks the relationship and the progenitors and their offspring are unable to reforge it.

That's it. Everything else is details. The details *may be* true or false, but for Christianity to function, the above must be true.

Also, the doctrine of original sin is *not* essential to Christianity. The idea that "all have sinned" is, but, IMHO, I am not separated from God by Adam, I separate myself from Him.

No, so long as there is sin, there is need for a savior. As I said, I don't think that sin necessarily flows from parent to child, but any broken relationship is in need of a savior. Even if there is no "original sin," I am not sure that the statement "all have sinned" ceases to be true.

Maybe, maybe not. Be careful that you do not equivocate fundamentalist with Christian. There are many schools of thought that are NOT what you would call "fundamentalists" that would remain untouched by large-scale "macro" evolution being proven as a fact.

As I am sure you can tell, I respectfully disagree.

 

If you have melted the rock specimen, then the elements that would of indicated it's age may nolonger exist. The orginal rock has been changed. It's like a new car. A new car really comes out of the ground, so when you go to purchase one, you don't ask the sales person if the car is really three billion years old. No, you will ask him if it is a 2007 model, because the material that was used to make the car has been changed just as the rock has changed after it was melted.

 

You are correct, there was a great amount of volcanic activity on the moon, but it is believed that activity ended about three to four billion years ago. So with that being the case, we still have the problem of the missing moon dust. I did discover that the actual thickness of the dust on the moon today is more like two inches. Yet, this is a long way from hundred's of feet.
Scientist felt the pads would be big enought to support the lander, and it was believed that the dust on the moon would be very deep because of the Evolution age factor. Three or four billion years of accumulated micro meteor dust should of been many times greater, than two inches.

 

There is no missing moon dust because the estimate that you are using is wrong. It comes from the 1965 NASA document "Meteor Orbits and Dust, vol.1" and it pertains to the Earth. Harlod Slusher later used the equations from it to estimate dust on the moon, but he misused the basic mathematical procedures from it and added factors that didn't apply, which inflates the figures by a factor of 10,000. When the equation is correctly done it yields a layer of dust on the moon 1/3 inch, which is less then what was found.

Nasa had already sent several probes to the moon by 1969 and knew the lander wasn't going to sink into the dust, the size of the pads had nothing to do with it.

The Bible is intended to be a spirtual guide not a science textbook.

 

Nobody wants to address the idea that the Moon itself is evidence for a Creator as the best and most likely explanation for its existance?

 

First I would point out, that to even suggest that todays micro meteorite levels of accumlation are the same as the levels of accumlation of the past four billion years, is almost laughable. The dust and debris during the formation of the universe would of been beyond belief.
Second, I don't know how old you are, but back in 1969 I was 19 years old, and I can tell you, the talk of the moon dust was a concern to scientist, and if you do your homework, you will discover the pads on the lunar lander were designed with that thought in mind.

The Bible is a Book of truth, and it is not made up of stories of fantasy.

 

How many planets in our solar system DON'T have moons? Two?

To say a creator is the best explanation for something requires a LOT of evidence for supernatural intervention.

 

No, not at all.
In the case of the Moon it can come down to a situation where there is no other explanation other than 'it was put there' on purpose by someone.
Someone who 'knew' to put it there too.

btw.. alot of times the 'best and most likely' explanation isnt even very 'best' or very likely.
Its just what you get left with when there is nothing better.

Even in this example, the only 'contender' for explaining the Moon by chance is the 'giant impact' theory.
But,
Its just terrible and entirely unlikely and nearly impossible.. but so far its the only thing left.

 

The Big Whack Theory

I'm surprised you of all people are having difficulty excepting The Big Whack Theory in which a planet-sized meteor slams into the Earth, creating a debris cloud that later coalesces into the moon.

God representing the Earth, and The Moon his Son :H


Hotwater

 

From 1961-1968, NASA had sent 9 Ranger series lunar probes, 7 Surveyor probes and 5 Lunar Orbitors probes to the moon, which mapped 99% of the lunar surface. Some of the Surveyor probes landed on the moon and took pictures and analyzed soil samples, NASA knew what the dust conditions were before they sent Apollo 11, in 1969.

 

Well hopefully you will have difficulty accepting everything that comes along but there are 'whackloads' of reasons why the Giant Impact Theory is.. well.. pretty dodgy.

Because Im lazy here is a copy of Wikipedia problems:

• Some of the Moon's volatile elements are not depleted as expected from the giant impact hypothesis.[3]
• There is no evidence that the Earth ever had a magma ocean (an implied result of the giant impact hypothesis)[3]
• Iron oxide (FeO) content of 13% of the bulk Moon properties rule out the derivation of the proto-lunar material from any but a small fraction of Earth's mantle.[4]
• If the bulk of the proto-lunar material had come from the impactor, the Moon should be enriched in siderophilic elements, when it is actually deficient of those.

Starchild reviews the various theories including the now defunct ones..
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question38.html

But Big Whack is an example of a sorta theory that we are kinda left with.. and no its not 'accepted' really by anyone.
Its just the only one left (not counting the obvious one that it was made by a Creator of course).

 

Just because we don't fully understand something doesn't mean god did it. In order for that to be logical, there would have to be evidence of a divine intervention. Something other than "The scientific community doesn't have a solid stance on this, so god did it." How did Jupiter's moons form? There are something like 30 or so moons in this solar system, and indeed I agree that a planetary collision seems unlikely. I think the best explanation is that they formed at the same time. Apparently galaxies start as a cloud of matter, and revolution and gravitation eventually form a disc shaped cloud, which eventually condenses into smaller things like planets and stars.

But saying god did it is just saying "who cares? Why research and try to figure out how it happened? God did it." It's intellectually lazy to turn to religion when you can't explain something.

 

Freaker

Yes it does...

Before we knew what thunder and lightning were or volcano's
GOD DID IT

It worked for a while and as we started to mature 'a few' were persistent
in their belief and would not admit error.

Today we have a fair idea of cosmic evolution and process
but, like thunder and lightning, a few will persist in saying
GOD DID IT

And they will fight bitterly to maintain their stance. For to be wrong
is to admit a lifetime of ignorance.

Creationists NEVER provide any verification for creationism
Their strategy is purely to debunk any scientific postulation that
would show creationism as false.
They are masters of obfuscation

People like ikden CANNOT admit creationism is false.
It is their POWER
To admit creationism is false would mean he is just an average joe
like occam, who does not know much about omnipotent gods
but does have some idea of cross verification of collated
information in relation to contemporary rational method.

Occam

 

No, its intellectual honesty.
The problem you have is evident in your post - making a contrived distinction between something called 'Religion' which (in your mind) is some different reality than something called 'Science'.

To be intellectually honest, you start by allowing 'anything' to be possible.
This means, if you find some sort of working components and it becomes unreasonable to believe they 'accidently' appeared..... then you are free to include the possiblity that a 'Designer' had a hand in placing them there.
Why?
Because you look around your environment for working components and often see that a designer had a hand in it.
So thats a valid explanation.
Maybe not even your 'best' one but it surely gets included along with anything else.
Including 'random chance' or 'aliens'.

I can tell you this - 'God did it' is a million fucking more times rational than just saying 'nothing did it' everytime you see something you dont understand either.
At least the former is based on something tangible and real, observed and reported.
The latter is magical nonsense you never see around you.
Dig it.

 

This is exactly the sort of childish garbage occam expects from creationists.

NOT ONE ANSWER TO A QUESTION.
JUST 'total moron' and 'so fucked up'

ANd ALWAYS at the end
ARE YOU HIGH OR WHAT DRUG ARE YOU ON

I seems to occam that freaker is 'popping smart pills'
[more likely just being himself]

Ikden, your worst enemy is your mouth and the small amount of
neocortex behind it.

Occam