The disprooveing of evalootion thread

Burbot, something I've been meaning to tell you. I would be proud to call you friend. You are methodical, logical, intelligent and concise in your posts. I only wish that everyone here (me included) were as you. I wouldn't have these fools iggy'd, that's for sure.

I love you, man.

 

i second that, zoomie. in reading this thread, i was feeling that old religious frustration coming back up; burbot is such an admirable poster, a prize to christians everywhere. burbot: christian to the rescue. no wonder you won the hipforums christian of the year poll!

love,
s.

 

Thanks Zoomie Not sure what you mean by "iggy'd" though

EDIT: Thank you as well nitemare

 

That is not what the link I provided says Erasmus. The calculations providing the much smaller numbers wee concluded upon in 1965, prior to any moon landing (and the previous "risky" estimate had been done in 1960).


In a conference held in late 1963, on the Lunar Surface Layer, McCracken and Dublin state that

"The lunar surface layer thus formed would, therefore, consist of a mixture of lunar material and interplanetary material (primarily of cometary origin) from 10 cm to 1 m thick. The low value for the accretion rate for the small particles is not adequate to produce large scale dust erosion or to form deep layers of dust on the moon, for the flux has probably remained fairly constant during the past several billion years." (p. 204)
(Shore, 1984, p.34)​

In 1965, a conference was held on the nature of the lunar surface. The basic conclusion of this conference was that both from the optical properties of the scattering of sunlight observed from the Earth, and from the early Ranger photographs, there was no evidence for an extensive dust layer.
(Shore, 1984, p.34)

Thus, several years before man landed on the moon there was a general feeling that our astronauts would not be greeted by vast layers of cosmic dust. Although direct confirmation was not yet at hand, allowing a few dissenting opinions, few scientists expected even as much as three feet of cosmic dust on the moon. In May 1966 Surveyor I had landed on the moon, thus putting an end to any lingering doubts about a manned landing sinking in dust.

 

No, your argument was too stupid to even bother with.

I bet you think evolution is as simple as a fish turing into a human right? lol.

 

What's with the assumption that evolution seeks to disprove creation?

Science doesn't give a crap about creation, it's really not important at all.

 

You said it yourself. "Individuals are most often well, but their lives are punctuated by periodic painful attacks. In addition to periodic pain, there may be damage of internal organs, such as stroke. Lifespan is often shortened. " That's what the artical says. I don't see how that can be helpful, even if it does prevent one disease.

 

Benificial is if it increases the chance of reproduction in your environment. Success in the natural world isnt who can live longer, it is who can pass on the most genes. If sickle cell disease increases the chance of reproduction (even with a high child mortality as stated in the article), then it is a benificial mutation. If the environment changes, lets say a whole bunch of new infectious diseases break out in an area with sickle-cell anemia. Because people with sickle cell anemia have a higher vulnerability to infections, then the mutation might not be benificial cause you can't fight off any illness...

How did we start talking about this anyways, I can't even remember....oooohhhh, yeah good vs bad mutations...

 

You know a hypothesis (Evolutionism) is in serious trouble when the very best it can do is give a handful (usually just two) examples where a mutation has.. lol.. somehow happens to cause a another mutation (disease) to be 'less effective'.
Wow.
Seriously.. that just tells you what a failure evolution must really be.

 

They can't reproduce if they die before the age required for reproduction. And like Erasmus70 said that's only one example. There would have to be more positives than negatives to make any progress, and neutrals don't count for anything in either direction.

 

Off the site I cited that has the list of "do not use arguments". If you havn't already, please look at that site.

‘There are no beneficial mutations.’ This is not true, since some changes do confer an advantage in some situations. Rather, we should say, ‘We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.’

Here is a link to thigns about benificial mutations http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q2

 

The more caustic and ignorant of the world go directly to my ignore list (iggy). I have no room in my life for trolling thieves like Erasmus and Clouds who steal my time and my patience.

 

Here's point three: The geologic columb can't be found in the right order anywhere on the earth. There are ofter missing strata, and the supposed new spesis are found down at the bottom of the rock layers. Btw, I don't see how me or Erasmus trooled or stoled anything.

 

k, thanks for that Zoomie...

B-T-C: Do you have a specific exampleof how you mean that, cause on the creationist website I provided to help you guys, one of the arguments not to use i this:

‘The Castenedolo and Calaveras human remains in “old” strata invalidate the geologic column.’ These are not sound examples—the Castenedolo skeletal material shows evidence of being an intrusive burial, i.e. a recent burial into older strata, since all the fossils apart from the human ones had time to be impregnated with salt. The Calaveras skull was probably a hoax planted into a mine by miners.​

it is the 5th bullet down...

 

Give us your theory, Erasmus (second time I've asked).

 

Can't people see that God uses evolution as well as other methods?

 

Its not really 'my theory' but - I like the Genesis Account as a real historical account ,which is validated by observation of the natural world around us.

 

I read somewhere that if Earth was over "so many thousands of years" the magnetic pull or what ever would cause the earth to implode on itself. Dose anyone know about this one? If so please post any more info you have on it. This should give ya'll something nice to discuss. Then again i can't remeber where i found that at so it could be full of pooey lol. least this group of debators isn't taking everything on a personal level lol!!

 

Burby, I think I love you man. I agree with what Zoomie previously said. You are probably the most open-minded Christian I have ever came across. That's just superb. I feel your personal theology is more based on faith than fact, which I find admirable. I used to be a Christian, and that was one thing I had to always imply: Faith. It seemed everyone was too caught up in proving this and disproving that (i.e. this thread). What happened to faith? Isn't that how many people back in the Old Testament went through life, they lived on faith in God. I can't remember what, or who, but I remember the story of the guy that was thrown in jail for no real reason, and he sat in there for the longest time but relied on this faith in God, and eventually was able to escape. Of course, that story is off the top of my head can could just as well not be right at all. But once again, I admire you immensely Burb! Way to go man!
edit* Oh, and I forgot to mention, you have my respect Burby. You deserve it from a lot of people.

 

A question, Erasmus...have you taken over for JDFU and Campbell?

They have been conspicuously absent lately. You seem to be coming from the same place theologically but with a more sophisticated approach and quite the biting wit, at times...you're more of a match for Lib.