The disprooveing of evalootion thread

Okay, this here's where the creationists and the evaloonists get up and debate. We're going to go one point at a time so that it dosn't get confusing. I'm going to need more people to get on my side of creation, since I'm not real smart. I'll start off the first point.
When the people went to land on the moon they were afraid that they were going to fall thru 20 feet of dust when they hit, since evalootion would indicate that the moon would be that old so that dust could accumulate. When they landed there was only 2 inches of dust indication that the age of the moon is in fact 10,000 years old at the most.

 

uhh...right.

 

Do you even know what evolution is?

Or do you just dissagree with it because some guy at church said it was crap?

 

Yes, I know what it is. I notice that you can't think of anything to say to disproove my statement. That's cuz it's a good solid undisprooveable fact.

 

evolution and creation are different...

You can't disprove evolution with the moon. That is just twisted logic. Proof that the moon is young doesn't solidify the existence of God, Abraham's God, or the accuracy of the account in Genesis...

 

Alos providing links to source your information is good too

 

If the moon is young then the earth is young, and evilloonshun needs billions of years to work right. I'm not trying to proove the existence of God, I'm trying to proove the falisy of evilon. Btw, you're a christian, so why don't you take the side of creation? If you don't like my method of debate, then debate with other facts. I'm just trying to verify one thing at a time; there will be more facts, not just moon facts. All evidence counts.

 

I don't NEED to be on any side. :H Let me ask this, would the notion that God didn't do things as in Genesis make you love God any less?

Ok, but still, do you have a link that has this dust fact on it?

oh well, I found a rebuttle. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_dust.html

 

If one part of the Bible isn't true, then that makes God a lier, which would make God a sinner, and none of the Bible could be trusted.

Okay, point one was disprooved. Point two: second law of thermodynamics states that "total entropy of any thermodynamically isolated system tends to increase over a maximum value".This means that things are decreasing in order, henceforth mutations are almost always harmfull to the specis. Evalotion says the exact opposite. Although it's true that there can be exceptions to this, evolusion releys on this happening all the time over billions of years.

 

Ok, 1) about the god thing. The Bible was written by man. You have to approach it critically.
2) The theory states that the mutations become most benifitial when the enironment changes. Because the environment changes, those organisms who are more suited will live and evolution can happen more quickly, whereas when the environment is in a more constant state, evolution happens far more slowly...

This is taken about third way down the page from the website I will cite.
Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure by its predictions. It only demands a "spreading out" of energy when such ordered compounds are formed spontaneously. http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html

 

But god didnt write the bible did he? This is where I feel many fundamental christians have missed the point of christianity. Theres no need to take the bible word for word, just take the message it is giving, which is not too different from most other religions on the go. Love, peace and forgiveness.

As for the dust on the moon...where would the dust have come from? From what Ive heard dust is made from dead skin cells, but there was never any skin on the moon to make the dust.

 

So, since A, then B?

Your logic is twisted, friend. B doesn't follow from A. The moon doesn't have to be young just because the Earth is.

Also, if you want any of us to believe you, why don't you post your source. I say, if they were expecting feet of dust, they'd have designed the legs of the lunar lander differently.

Wrong.

Look at Darwin's book, On The Evolution of Species. Nowhere in the book does it say "we all evolved billions of years ago from tiny single-celled organisms," no. It says, as organisms live, they are subject to mutations, and by the process of natural selection, the organisms with functional mutations live, and the organisms with debilitory mutations die, thus resulting in a process of organism "evolution."

It doesn't say anything about where we came from.

Question for you: Do you think that atheists are following any different logic than you are here?

Not true. There are other forces in the universe than entropy. One of them is gravity, which is PRACTICALLY the reverse of entropy. Entropy is the natural "thinning out" of things, and gravity pulls things together. If entropy were the only force, we wouldn't be here. There are also other forces: The electro-magnetic forces (which can push away or pull together), the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, I'm sure scientists could come up with many more.

Also, mutations aren't always harmful to the species. Some mutations allow organisms to produce antibodies to a certain infection, and thus survive.

And keep in mind: Most mutations are actually benign. They are usually not "good" or "bad," and they usually do not affect an individual organism too badly. Look at the human race: We all have different mutations and permutations about us, because we are all not the same. Some of us have 6 fingers, some of us have 4 toes, some of us are retarded, and some of us are able to remember everything because we are unable to forget them. Not all mutations are bad or good.

And Burbot: You have my respect, for being a Christian and being able to argue both sides of the matter. =)

 

Wrong. the dust on the moon are tiny particles of minerals and whatnot the float around in space. Saturns and Jupiters rings are made up of ice and dust too.

If you had read my link, you would understand that there is dust in space, and that "dust" can be used to conote a couple different things

 

Thanks Burbot, read your link now. I stand corrected on that point

 

For creationists (from a creationist website), a list of arguments that they strongly advise NOT using, as well as a few at the bottom they say to be wary about...I think there has to be an area where what they consider valid arguments are, but I didn't really look hard to find them. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

 

Yes, God wrote the Bible by telling the writers what to say. How would regular people be able to make proficys and predictions that came true all the time?

When did these changes take place? And if there are some good mutations, the bad ones will eventually catch up and erase the good ones.

I realize that, but present day evaloonists say that the earth is app. 4.something billion years old, because they have found out that much time is required for anything to evolve.

Not always is right; I stated that in my last post, but most of the time. The percentage of bad mutations is more than the percentage of good mutations.

 

One of the things Evo Fundies are trying to do these days is 'dumb down' the arguments.
For example, The Moon Dust Example is now brought up more by EvoFundies than ever before.
Why?
The current discussions are getting far too competititive and they want to get back to 1970.
Recently their latest one has been pushing for a 'Flat Earth Debate' whenever possible.

btw.. Back in the 60s (maybe earlier?) someone calculated the Moon would have X-amount of Dust based on millions of years.
It turned out to have almost none. 2 inches whatever.
Obviously, the original calculation was wrong.
So it was redone in such a way that 2 inches of Moon Dust fits with Millions of years.

Then - If you bring it up they can say 'AHA!.. Idiot.. that has been recalculated long time ago so haha'

Stupid.

 

What's the flat earth debate?

 

Let's see your arguments, Erasmus.

 

I never said that the writers weren't inspired by God or not, you did.

Ok, if by changes, you mean environmental ones, small changes can happen everyday (a boulder falling in a stram altering the water flow), but large sale ones are a little more rare (Like a volcanic eruption or somethign). An example of a large scale change (that i can use in an example of speciation) may be the eradication of a certain food source that a species relies on because of specialization. Mutations that allow for adaptation to another source of food would quickly become more previlent. Hypothetically, speciation could occur if there was another population of the species that ate this food source seperaed from the species that lost it, and not interbreeding could occur.

An example of a good mutation, considering the environment, is sickle cell disease. Sickle cell disease is a disease where the red blood cells are sickle shaped, and have less capacity for oxygen. Lifespan is often shortened. It is common in people from parts of the world where malaria is or was common, especially in West Africa or in descendents of those peoples. Sickle cell disease can occur in any individual of any color or ethnicity, however. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_anemia This specific mutation is benificial to these populations because the disease also guards against malaria.