Darwinism in schools?

[rossum]

It wasn.t necessary to be accurate at the time? Evolutionary “science” was RELIED UPON for space travel and it was wrong.

It wasn’t “evolutionary science”, it was “science”. Things like physics and astronomy, not biology. Standard, normal science. Nothing to do with either biology or evolution. It is just that YEC is in such disagreement with reality that large chunks of non-biological science have to be thrown out in order to accommodate YEC lunacy.

Thin layer?

Yes. Thin layer. Remember that both the Americans and the Russians had made unmanned moon landings years before Neil Armstrong took his “small step”. The amount of dust was already known. Remember Lunokhod?

Who are you relying for facts?

I am relying on the knowledge at the time gleaned from the various unmanned lunar landers from both Russia (Luna) and the US (Surveyor). Actual real facts, gathered by scientists from instruments placed on the moon. You on the other hand are just relying on lying creationist quotemines.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

It wasn’t “evolutionary science”, it was “science”. Things like physics and astronomy, not biology. Standard, normal science. Nothing to do with either biology or evolution. It is just that YEC is in such disagreement with reality that large chunks of non-biological science have to be thrown out in order to accommodate YEC lunacy.

Yes. Thin layer. Remember that both the Americans and the Russians had made unmanned moon landings years before Neil Armstrong took his “small step”. The amount of dust was already known. Remember Lunokhod?

I am relying on the knowledge at the time gleaned from the various unmanned lunar landers from both Russia (Luna) and the US (Surveyor). Actual real facts, gathered by scientists from instruments placed on the moon. You on the other hand are just relying on lying creationist quotemines.

rossum

Nothing is so simple…

I remember hearing the discussion about the moon dust. My recollection is that they thought it might be thick enough to swallow the lander. Others thought it might be “compacted” to provide a firmer surface. In the end they figured the only way to find out was to land.

 

[LJH_80]

Would you think, “Let us make man” means he didn’t make him then and there? No scripture verses indicate a sub species or half simian man. As well Jesus quoted Genesis,"he made them from the beginning male and female. Was he talking about non -humans?

So, in order to be accurate, you agree that evolution allows for a designer, just not for a literal Biblical interpretation, correct?

Ergo, your argument can no longer be “this must have been designed” but rather “this must have been designed in accordance with these exact dates, orders, and genealogies presented in Genesis.”
Is that a correct statement?

 

[LJH_80]

**100 Explosions on the Moon **

May 21, 2008: Not so long ago, anyone claiming to see flashes of light on the Moon would be viewed with deep suspicion by professional astronomers. Such reports were filed under “L” … for lunatic.
Not anymore. Over the past two and a half years, NASA astronomers have observed the Moon flashing at them not just once but one hundred times.
“They’re explosions caused by meteoroids hitting the Moon,” explains Bill Cooke, head of NASA’s Meteoroid Environment Office at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). “A typical blast is about as powerful as a few hundred pounds of TNT and can be photographed easily using a backyard telescope.”
As an example, he offers this video of an impact near crater Gauss on January 4, 2008:

http://science.nasa.gov/media/media...p_lunarperseids_resources/impactmap_strip.jpg

Thank you for the lovely picture. In there, among the tiny, barely-visible craters, you’ll notice several craters big enough to be seen with the naked eye. These would, presumably, have been easily visible from Earth, not merely as flashes, but as having not been there one night, and having been there forever after.

I am asking why we haven’t found writings about those transitional events.
“they did, and we just don’t have the documents. They were wiped out in the flood.” is a perfectly legitimate answer. I’m not trying to trip you up (well maybe a little bit), but I’m more interested in the theory.

 

[buffalo]

Thank you for the lovely picture. In there, among the tiny, barely-visible craters, you’ll notice several craters big enough to be seen with the naked eye. These would, presumably, have been easily visible from Earth, not merely as flashes, but as having not been there one night, and having been there forever after.

I am asking why we haven’t found writings about those transitional events.
“they did, and we just don’t have the documents. They were wiped out in the flood.” is a perfectly legitimate answer. I’m not trying to trip you up (well maybe a little bit), but I’m more interested in the theory.

I do not have an answer…

yet.

 

[edwest2]

This sentence is where I have disagreed with you via my watchmaker argument several pages back.
I don’t believe the watchmaker physically moves the hands on my watch every second of every day. I believe that he set up a system by which the hands move on their own to create the desired result at the desired time.

My view of evolution is the same. God created a system that He knew would come to a desired endstate, then let it run its course.

I am not saying that you need to believe my system, just stating that evolution does not, by necessity, exclude a designer.

The crux of the argument revolves around the fact that Darwinism, as taught, excludes a God-like designer, and there are textbooks that explicitly deny such or specifically state that humans are nothing special and even “fortuitous,” as in, no plan was in place for our development. We just happened to luck out and appear.

That is why this is brought up so often. Respectfully, I believe the reason is to reinforce a “fact” and to get universal - and Catholic - compliance.

Peace,
Ed

 

[LJH_80]

I do not have an answer…

yet.

Now you’re talking like a scientist

 

[johnnyjones]

It wasn’t “evolutionary science”, it was “science”. Things like physics and astronomy, not biology. Standard, normal science. Nothing to do with either biology or evolution. It is just that YEC is in such disagreement with reality that large chunks of non-biological science have to be thrown out in order to accommodate YEC lunacy.

Yes. Thin layer. Remember that both the Americans and the Russians had made unmanned moon landings years before Neil Armstrong took his “small step”. The amount of dust was already known. Remember Lunokhod?

I am relying on the knowledge at the time gleaned from the various unmanned lunar landers from both Russia (Luna) and the US (Surveyor). Actual real facts, gathered by scientists from instruments placed on the moon. You on the other hand are just relying on lying creationist quotemines.

rossum

Read post 267 please. Documentation that before travel the billions year old theory and thick sinking dust was in full effect. Okay, science (with a billion year old bent), does it change the outcome of the thick layer of dust? Yes, thin layer when they got there.

 

[johnnyjones]

So, in order to be accurate, you agree that evolution allows for a designer, just not for a literal Biblical interpretation, correct?

Ergo, your argument can no longer be “this must have been designed” but rather “this must have been designed in accordance with these exact dates, orders, and genealogies presented in Genesis.”
Is that a correct statement?

The word “designed” is used often in evolutionary talk. Evolution “allows” for the word to be used without providing the entity that does the designing. So, your argument can no longer be that the word designed is appropriate. Theistic evolution being the exception to the use of the word.

 

[buffalo]

Now you’re talking like a scientist

I just need more time… a few billion years…or so

 

[LJH_80]

The word “designed” is used often in evolutionary talk. Evolution “allows” for the word to be used without providing the entity that does the designing. So, your argument can no longer be that the word designed is appropriate. Theistic evolution being the exception to the use of the word.

Perhaps there is an issue with the wording. Does evolution need to provide who did the designing?

Does astronomy need to talk about who put the comets in motion to discuss their motions?

Or did you mean “without providing for an entity that…”?

 

[rossum]

Nothing is so simple…

I remember hearing the discussion about the moon dust. My recollection is that they thought it might be thick enough to swallow the lander. Others thought it might be “compacted” to provide a firmer surface. In the end they figured the only way to find out was to land.

They had landed many times before the Apollo missions. NASA, and the Russians, were both well aware of the kind of surface they would meet when the first manned craft landed.

I suspect that the discussions of dust might have been more about interesting the TV/radio/newspaper audience than about the actual science of the lunar surface. That was already well known by 1969; there was already a lot of data available.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

They had landed many times before the Apollo missions. NASA, and the Russians, were both well aware of the kind of surface they would meet when the first manned craft landed.

I suspect that the discussions of dust might have been more about interesting the TV/radio/newspaper audience than about the actual science of the lunar surface. That was already well known by 1969; there was already a lot of data available.

rossum

I don’t see value in us arguing this particular point any longer.

 

[johnnyjones]

Perhaps there is an issue with the wording. Does evolution need to provide who did the designing?

Does astronomy need to talk about who put the comets in motion to discuss their motions?

Or did you mean “without providing for an entity that…”?

Thats a good question. The use of words is important. Does the word mean, create, fashion, construct according to plan; devise.

Tell me if is being used differently.
As far as comets, I know your trying to make some kind of point but why wouldn’t the motion of comets need to be discussed, if asked? Or expounded upon.

If I used bad grammar I apologize. Also, my spell check isn’t working on this computer. I’m not home.

 

[johnnyjones]

They had landed many times before the Apollo missions. NASA, and the Russians, were both well aware of the kind of surface they would meet when the first manned craft landed.

I suspect that the discussions of dust might have been more about interesting the TV/radio/newspaper audience than about the actual science of the lunar surface. That was already well known by 1969; there was already a lot of data available.

rossum

With all that said, it doesn’t change that when they got there, the dust speculated to have accumulated over billions of years, was not there. They (astronomers, evolutionists) were talking about this in 1955 and into the 60s.

 

[rossum]

Read post 267 please.

I did. It was that post I was replying to.

Documentation that before travel the billions year old theory and thick sinking dust was in full effect.

It wasn’t. Your sources were mistaken. The initial high estimate was made by Pettersson in 1960, who stood on top of a mountain and collected dust. That gave too large an estimate, because a proportion of the dust was from Earth and not from space. Later measurements, which looked at data on dust taken from satellites as well as actual data from the moon, showed that the correct figure was a lot smaller.

I will agree that before the initial unmanned landings on the moon, there was uncertainty about the amount of dust. Pettersson’s result was known to be too high, but it was not clear how badly it was in error. Actual measurements on the moon due to the early probes – a good telescope can see how much dust is thrown up by anything landing – showed that moon dust was not going to be a problem. Lunar rovers had been travelling on the moon without major problems from deep dust. By the time of the Apollo landings the question was resolved in favour of only a thin layer of dust.

Your creationist sources are completely omitting the history of unmanned exploration of the moon that preceded the first manned landing.

Okay, science (with a billion year old bent), does it change the outcome of the thick layer of dust? Yes, thin layer when they got there.

And they got there years before Neil Armstrong. The association with the Apollo mission is spurious, and shows the lack of knowledge behind the sources which are pushing that line.

rossum

 

[LJH_80]

My point is that, for comets, the relevant discussion for a science class is how they move. If the student believes that Jesus created them to move that way, or that Allah did, or Vishnu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or random impersonal physics, the student may still believe that, and the motion is unaffected.
In other words, for other subjects, it is unnecessary to talk about who the designer is in order to teach the science, but that doesn’t mean that a creator wasn’t involved.
The fact that the Earth is at the perfect distance from the sun, with the right chemical makeup, a stable orbit, and isn’t being bombarded with world-ending asteroids on a regular basis are all things that seem ridiculously fortunate for us, and seem to indicate an initial design. Yet none of these things require discussing who designed them in order to discuss how they continue to operate (like you don’t need to discuss who made the watch to describe how it continues to operate).

Likewise, the theory of evolution explains how things developed on their own, but does not exclude the idea that it was designed to function to create this end result, much as the continued motion of the planets does not contradict the idea that they were set in motion by a creator.

You frequently said that things were so complex or improbable that they needed to have been designed.
Let’s say I agree; everything needed to be designed. But what if I argue that it was designed 13.7billion years ago? Or I argue it was designed 50,000 years ago? Or last ? I doubt you will agree with any of those statements.

Your argument is not merely that everything must have been designed, but that it must have been designed exactly as Genesis states.

 

[Farsight001]

Based on ONE man NASA built the giant saucer shaped feet on the lunar lander right ? If I show you a “non creationists” link in regards to this, then what?

No. The giant saucer shaped feet had nothing to do with one man’s mistaken math which, as I already pointed out, were proven inaccurate before they went to the moon. The giant saucer shaped feet had nothing to do with any prediction of moon dust. Even 6 inches of dust would have created a sinking issue if you put pointy spikes as the feet. A large surface area for a base is just common sense in anything.

 

[Farsight001]

Many subjects in evolutionary theory are not believed or endorsed by all scientists . As well, I could start posting other scientists that do not concur with "dinosaur/bird concept. I have previously posted evolutionists who have stopped teaching a particular aspect of the theory.

And? Please make a point next time.

 

[johnnyjones]

I did. It was that post I was replying to.

It wasn’t. Your sources were mistaken. The initial high estimate was made by Pettersson in 1960, who stood on top of a mountain and collected dust. That gave too large an estimate, because a proportion of the dust was from Earth and not from space. Later measurements, which looked at data on dust taken from satellites as well as actual data from the moon, showed that the correct figure was a lot smaller.

I will agree that before the initial unmanned landings on the moon, there was uncertainty about the amount of dust. Pettersson’s result was known to be too high, but it was not clear how badly it was in error. Actual measurements on the moon due to the early probes – a good telescope can see how much dust is thrown up by anything landing – showed that moon dust was not going to be a problem. Lunar rovers had been travelling on the moon without major problems from deep dust. By the time of the Apollo landings the question was resolved in favour of only a thin layer of dust.

Your creationist sources are completely omitting the history of unmanned exploration of the moon that preceded the first manned landing.

And they got there years before Neil Armstrong. The association with the Apollo mission is spurious, and shows the lack of knowledge behind the sources which are pushing that line.

rossum

Mistaken? . It’s all documented. Check it yourself. If you need more I’ll provide it. Saying it over and over that the dust theory wasn’t a big concern puts you in a questionable light. Look into the construction of the lunar lander. As I said though, who was there first or not doesn’t change what was believed based on the theory you embrace.

This is not a major issue but a point to reflect how the theory you support can error. However, if your going to deny that it ever happened I have to correct you…