Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

reply to post by Arbitrageur So, what follows is the quote I was looking for when I was reminded of exactly how this thread got the tone it did & decided to reply to novacs4me instead. It was another in reply to you actually:

Creation Scientists have alternate explanations for every single piece of evidence used evolutionists to formulate their old earth theory. He cites one explanation, which is, God created the earth and life with the appearance of age. Obviously, humans need to be nurtured and looked after, much longer than the animals do, therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the first humans were created mature and of age, with the ability to take care of themselves. Likewise, the planet was created with the appearance of age. It's no great leap of faith to accept that theory....or is it?

Now I'll confess thats not the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on ATS, but its up there with the funniest! What, like the earth felt all cozy & wrapped up @night swaddled in its layers of fossils?
Off to the Classic Quotes Burial Ground with that, methinks.
Edit to add: I couldn't bring myself to reply to it back then for fear of getting just too silly!

[edit on 18/9/09 by Bunken Drum]

reply to post by Bunken Drum


The ability for animals to nurture offspring and the speed at which animals mature and take care of themselves from birth onward varies. It's mostly instinctual but in some cases, such as humans, much of our nurturing is learned behavior.

Four legged animals can walk within minutes or a few hours, and move in the direction of their mothers to feed themselves....Humans cannot do this, therefore, I find your criticizm unjustified. I expected you to see and understand this without me saying it.

Since I believe the evidence supports creation, the first humans would abviously have been created as "mature" humans.

Questions for you:

Which evolved first, the egg or the ceature.

Were creatures designed to lay an egg, or was the egg designed to become a creature?

Either way, who designed the egg and all the different types of eggs?

If not designed by an intelligent designer, who made his creation mature from the beginning, then how did the egg evolve?

Do you think that all the eggs, for all the different species that produce offspring through eggs, evolve from a one celled organism that crawled out of a slime pit?

If not, tell us how.

At what point did the egg mutate and gain the ability to morf into all of the species that reproduce offspring by way of the typical bird or reptile egg?

This is just one area that is problematic for evolutionits.

Creation Science has no problem in this area. Intelligent Design involves a creator making His creation mature, with the ability to reproduce, and the instincts to nurture new offspring.






[edit on 18/9/09 by John Matrix]

I'm back with the evolutionist's problem of lunar recession. Here is an evolutionist viewpoint and a creationist's rebuttal. There is no doubt that the moon is moving away from the earth. It could never have been closer to the earth than 18,400 kilometers, which is called the Roche limit. Both writers have tried to put this contentious issue into laymen's terms. It is a critical requirement for proving or disproving a young or old earth.

reply to post by John Matrix I know this is a mistake, but, to paraphrase Scotty, I just canny ignore the laws of physics Cap'n! John, I'm not going to debate you, as you've shown that no matter what anyone says, you ignore it & repeat yourself; you lie; you evade; you lie about evading; you engage in passive-aggressive derision in place of outright ad hominem when that gets you more than you can handle back; you lie about that too; did I mention lying?
The quote of yours above is so funny because of the last bit. What possible purpose could a creator have in placing fossils so deep underground that they have only been found since advanced mining techniques?
Oh, but the earth had to look old, because the 1st people were mature? Why, when those fossils couldn't even be found until humans had become more than able to look after themselves?
Why bother @all? Whatever our environment, we make the best of it. The survivors of the holocaust are ample evidence of that.
Lastly John, I know you've already started formulating a reply accusing me of reciprocal intransigence, because thats also something you do, which I forgot to include above: whatever someone says to you personally you repeat back to them, regardless of how absurd your accusation. Understand, I reviewed most of your links, after the 1st few, I declined to comment as others covered most of it & you didn't listen to them, so why bother? Frankly John, if I were to adopt such a slipshod manner, as displayed by your creation pseudoscientists, to my work, I would never get another contract. My fields of expertise are in sound & electronics: if I can see straight to the flaws of methodology, analysis & logic in what you presented, actual biologists, paleontologists, geologists, et al must have laughed their arses off, if they hadn't just given up in disgust.

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
My fields of expertise are in sound & electronics: if I can see straight to the flaws of methodology, analysis & logic in what you presented, actual biologists, paleontologists, geologists, et al must have laughed their arses off, if they hadn't just given up in disgust.

You never answered any of my questions. I will assume it is because you can't.

Maybe you should consider staying within your field of expertise because you are making a fool of yourself defending evolution and personally attacking me.

You never commented on any of the last 5 or 6 sources I posted, nor have you given me a relevant source to back up your condescending opinions and comments.

Try responding with some sources rather than your long winded attacks and subterfuge.

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Bunken Drum

 

Questions for you:

Which evolved first, the egg or the ceature.

Were creatures designed to lay an egg, or was the egg designed to become a creature?

Either way, who designed the egg and all the different types of eggs?

If not designed by an intelligent designer, who made his creation mature from the beginning, then how did the egg evolve?

Do you think that all the eggs, for all the different species that produce offspring through eggs, evolve from a one celled organism that crawled out of a slime pit?

If not, tell us how.

At what point did the egg mutate and gain the ability to morf into all of the species that reproduce offspring by way of the typical bird or reptile egg?

Of course the creature was first, then it evolved to lay eggs, because eggs protection and nutrients increased its chance of reproduction.

This is just one area that is problematic for evolutionits.

Creation Science has no problem in this area. Intelligent Design involves a creator making His creation mature, with the ability to reproduce, and the instincts to nurture new offspring.

[edit on 18/9/09 by John Matrix]

Why do you think eggs are a problem for evolution?

Creation science has no problem in any area. "God did it" is, after all, their answer to any question. But it is not science.

From "what makes thunder?" to "what makes life?", the concept is the same, just the questions change here and there.

Originally posted by novacs4me
I'm back with the evolutionist's problem of lunar recession. Here is an evolutionist viewpoint and a creationist's rebuttal. There is no doubt that the moon is moving away from the earth. It could never have been closer to the earth than 18,400 kilometers, which is called the Roche limit. Both writers have tried to put this contentious issue into laymen's terms. It is a critical requirement for proving or disproving a young or old earth.

Thank you for the education. Is your source the same Malcolm Bowden who argues that the Earth is at the center of the universe, and that everything in the universe rotates around the Earth?

THE BASIC SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS FOR GEOCENTRICITY by Malcolm Bowden

Some excerpts:

How can the universe rotate so rapidly without disintegrating?

Well I give him some credit for at least realizing that's enough of a problem to ask the question!

Thus, there is evidence that the earth is NOT moving around the sun

I admit that idea was popular hundreds of years ago, but the reason I find your source educational is that I never expected anyone in educated, civilized society really still believed that.

Do you also believe the entire universe rotates around the Earth like the source you quoted?

Alrighty then, you've convinced me of something, but it's probably not what you intended to convince me of.

I expect beliefs like this to come from deep jungles where people have never been to school, but not from civilized society where the idea that the universe rotates around the Earth was disproven centuries ago.

I could cite many references and sources on the formation of the moon, but they would have little effect on someone who believes that the universe rotates around the Earth, or someone who believes that such a source is credible enough to quote to support any argument.

Lastly, I think the evolution that Darwin talks about (The topic of this thread after all) was biological evolution, so the convoluted discussions into pre-life creation of the universe, while interesting, go far beyond the biological evolution topic, which was Darwin's field of research. So that's another reason to not post sources about the moon formation, to keep on topic about Darwin's evolution, the biological type of evolution.

Originally posted by Maslo
Of course the creature was first, then it evolved to lay eggs, because eggs protection and nutrients increased its chance of reproduction.

The answer is neither because it takes two chickens to make an egg that will bring forth a new chicken:

1. a male chicken(rooster)
2. female chicken(hen)

To make an egg, you need a male chicken (rooster) and a female chicken (hen). These chickens need a fully functioning reproductive system. Think...if the theory of evolution is true, the male and female would have to evolve their reproductive systems at the same TIME. Imagine the female is fully evolved, but the male is not. Does she start hen pecking him by telling him "hurry up and evolve, we are going to be dead in a few years?"

For sexual reproduction, animals do not have “millions of years” to evolve. They would need to evolve their reproductive organs within their life time.

For the chicken and the egg, you need a 100% functioning male and 100% functioning female. But wait a second! They also need a functioning digestive system, nervous system, immune system, skeletal system, muscular system etc.

Here is a major difference between Creation and Evolution - Creationists believe in "instant chickens." Creationists believe a Creator with a lot of power and intelligence instantly made males and females at the same time, and put them at the same place. These instant chickens had functioning eyes, mouths, legs, digestive systems, reproductive systems etc.

Evolutionists believe chickens evolved by a step by step process. They believe their eyes, mouths, digestive system, nervous system, muscular system, reproductive system evolved by a step by step process. Think of the details.....how does a reproductive system evolve by a step by step process? And don't forget, it has to evolve as male and as a female.

Read more about it from the Source: www.fishdontwalk.com...

Hopefully now you will begin to see the fatal problems with evolution.

reply to post by John Matrix


Are you being serious?

I mean really...you cannot fathom the understanding of how eggs evolved, over a great deal of time?

Hint: Hard-shell eggs didn't arise first.

Truly....go learn real science, and stop relying on the 'creationist' nonsense. It's garbled....

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Don't bother trying to explain the difference between abiogenesis, evolution, physics, or any other field of science to these trolls. They somehow think that they're all the same thing.. it just boggles my mind.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by DisappearCompletely]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by John Matrix

 

Are you being serious?

I mean really...you cannot fathom the understanding of how eggs evolved, over a great deal of time?

Hint: Hard-shell eggs didn't arise first.

Truly....go learn real science, and stop relying on the 'creationist' nonsense. It's garbled....

Are you serious? Did you read the source I provided?

How about providing some sources to support your view?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Don't you just hate it when that happens? Here you are, with a bit of science education (talking about myself here... not casting aspersions) and you find someone who supports something you have read before, and you think there, I've found the link I need, and you use it, and then someone shows you that you have 'backed the wrong horse'. Well, I don't mean the wrong horse is a young earth. I mean the wrong horse is somebody who published something somewhere else on the web that is just plain wrong. So I admit, this reference was a mistake. Do you all know what it is like to try to write something while your spouse is pressuring you to get off the computer? Well, if not, consider yourselves lucky. Anyway, I still think lunar recession is key to knowing the age of the earth. So go ahead, shoot down Dr. Don DeYoung, who says the same thing, but as far as I can see, doesn't come with the baggage of Malcolm Bowden. I'm listening, but I'm not convinced.

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

So, what follows is the quote I was looking for when I was reminded of exactly how this thread got the tone it did & decided to reply to novacs4me instead. It was another in reply to you actually:

Likewise, the planet was created with the appearance of age. It's no great leap of faith to accept that theory....or is it?

Of all the arguments that any creationists make, I give that explanation credit for being the most plausible of all of them.

As Dr. Hazen said, God could have created the Earth 10,000 years ago, with all the fossils buried deep underground to give it the APPEARANCE of great age, and scientists cannot prove that's not what happened. So I award that theory the gold star as the most credible of all creation arguments.

Of course it raises the question about why God would do that. And it basically renders any science based on observation meaningless (either traditional science or "creation science") because the sciences are based on the principle that our observations don't lie to us, and in that event, the observations would be lying to us, making us think the Earth was ancient when it's really not.

All the other young Earth Creation theories fall apart with the shallowest of scrutiny but that's really the only argument that has any possible credibility whatsoever, and even Dr Hazen admits that.

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Don't bother trying to explain the difference between abiogenesis, evolution, physics, or any other field of science to these trolls. They somehow think that they're all the same thing.. it just boggles my mind.

I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I thought we were debating with rational intelligent people. But now that I see them quoting sources who say the universe revolves around the Earth, I think you have a point that it may not be very useful to try to explain things intelligently to anyone who believes those sources. I had no idea that was the situation we are dealing with, and I admit it's a shocking revelation to me, as I thought those beliefs died out hundreds of years ago.

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Don't bother trying to explain the difference between abiogenesis, evolution, physics, or any other field of science to these trolls. They somehow think that they're all the same thing.. it just boggles my mind.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by DisappearCompletely]

Why do you call John or me a troll? Did I call you any names? And why would anybody star that post? Would you own up to it, or was it just another ATS drive-by shooting?





[edit on 18-9-2009 by novacs4me]

Originally posted by John Matrix

The answer is neither because it takes two chickens to make an egg that will bring forth a new chicken:

1. a male chicken(rooster)
2. female chicken(hen)

To make an egg, you need a male chicken (rooster) and a female chicken (hen). These chickens need a fully functioning reproductive system. Think...if the theory of evolution is true, the male and female would have to evolve their reproductive systems at the same TIME. Imagine the female is fully evolved, but the male is not. Does she start hen pecking him by telling him "hurry up and evolve, we are going to be dead in a few years?"

For sexual reproduction, animals do not have “millions of years” to evolve. They would need to evolve their reproductive organs within their life time.

For the chicken and the egg, you need a 100% functioning male and 100% functioning female. But wait a second! They also need a functioning digestive system, nervous system, immune system, skeletal system, muscular system etc.

Here is a major difference between Creation and Evolution - Creationists believe in "instant chickens." Creationists believe a Creator with a lot of power and intelligence instantly made males and females at the same time, and put them at the same place. These instant chickens had functioning eyes, mouths, legs, digestive systems, reproductive systems etc.

Evolutionists believe chickens evolved by a step by step process. They believe their eyes, mouths, digestive system, nervous system, muscular system, reproductive system evolved by a step by step process. Think of the details.....how does a reproductive system evolve by a step by step process? And don't forget, it has to evolve as male and as a female.

Read more about it from the Source: www.fishdontwalk.com...

Hopefully now you will begin to see the fatal problems with evolution.

Sexual reproduction had not evolved in multicellular organisms. It was here before them.
Many protists reproduce both sexualy and asexualy, so even your absurd example is not a problem for them, because when they had not yet fully evolved sexual reproduction capable of fully substituting the asexual way, they can use the asexual to reproduce too.
But it gives them some comparative advantage over the mutants with only asexual reproduction.

This is basic biology, for the sake of fsm...

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 18-9-2009 by Maslo]

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Don't bother trying to explain the difference between abiogenesis, evolution, physics, or any other field of science to these trolls. They somehow think that they're all the same thing.. it just boggles my mind.

Abiogenesis is a branch of evolution....in fact, putting it simply, it involves attempts to discover whether the unproven hypothesis of chemical evolution "COULD" have brought about life from non living inanimate matter.

I think Bunken Drum used an article to discredit a point I made a few pages back, in which he claimed scientists had made living cells. I read the article and found the cells to by "synthetic" using parts of already living cells. Not quite making life completely from non living particles.

If it's impossible to do in a lab, with all of man's advancements and creativity, then it's infinitely impossible for natural processes to do it by accident, regardless how many hundred billion years you might want to add to your evolution equation.



[edit on 18/9/09 by John Matrix]

Originally posted by Maslo
Sexual reproduction had not evolved in multicellular organisms. It was here before them.
Many protists reproduce both sexualy and asexualy, so even your absurd example is not a problem for them, because when they had not yet fully evolved sexual reproduction capable of fully substituting the asexual way, they can use the asexual to reproduce too.
But it gives them some comparative advantage over the mutants with only asexual reproduction.

This is basic biology, for the sake of fsm...

en.wikipedia.org...

You are comparing the reproduction of higher forms of life to protists(micro-organisms)?

It is your dance around the topic at hand that is absurd.

Evolution is all part of the grand scheme to dumb down the sheeple.

It's working.

How people that can articulate as well as you, Bunken Drum, and a few others and yet believe in such nonsense is nothing short of a miracle.

reply to post by novacs4me


OK sorry to the mods if this type of "evolution" is a little off topic from Darwin's evolution, but since you asked, I'll answer.

Thank goodness you don't believe that stuff about the universe revolving around the Earth!!

The other link you posted is more credible, but his analysis is oversimplified.

He takes a quite logical approach of looking at the current rate of recession, then works backwards to develop an upper limit on the age of the moon of 1.4 billion years. He didn't show all his work on his math so I can't tell you exactly where his calculation errors are, but the currently most popular model of the Moons formation is much more complicated that his oversimplified calculations suggest.

What's interesting is that after calculating the 1.4 billion year upper limit for the moon's age, he still surmises that the moon is 10,000 years old!!! This should tell you something. He actually does some real science and then chooses to ignore it!

This video shows one possible theory of the moon's formation (I think it's the most popular theory but there are others).



It shows how the moon might have been formed with a far more complicated model than the simple differential equations used in your latest source.

If he used this model to modify his calculations, I think he might find it possible to reach a different maximum upper limit to the age of the moon than his oversimplified calculations suggest.

But I give him credit in that his 1.4 billion years is at least in the right order of magnitude, unlike those who claim 10,000 years, but oops he thinks 10,000 years too, in spite of his scientific calculations, which makes me wonder why he even bothered with the calculations?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Where is all the space dust that should cover the moon's surface? Three quarters of an inch accumulations found in 1969 isn't much...less than 10,000 years of accumulation in fact. At an inch per 10,000 years there should be dozens of feet of dust on the moon.

Let me guess, a wind came up and blew it all away.

The distance between earth and the moon is measured by bouncing lasers off mirrors (that are on the moons surface) and back to earth.

Form one year to the next the distance changes. The math is not that complicated.

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Where is all the space dust that should cover the moon's surface? Three quarters of an inch accumulations found in 1969 isn't much...less than 10,000 years of accumulation in fact. At an inch per 10,000 years there should be dozens of feet of dust on the moon.

Regolith Layer Thickness Mapping of the Moon by Radar and Optical Data

Mapping of regolith layer thickness for the lunar nearside is carried out with Arecibo radar data at 70 cm wavelength (T. W. Thompson 1987, Earth Moon Planets 37, 59-70) and distributions of iron and titanium content derived from Earth-based optical data (Yu. Shkuratov et al. 1999, Icarus 137, 222-234). For the mapping a new simple model of radio wave multiple scattering in the regolith layer was used. A comparison of this map with independent estimates of regolith layer thickness for landing sites and other areas of the lunar surface showed a good correlation. It was found that regional variations of thickness are almost the same for maria and highlands, though the average thicknesses are different (5 and 12 m, respectively). A relatively thin regolith layer (4 m) covers a portion of Mare Serenitatis, Mare Tranquillitatis, and Mare Humorum, while the thickest regolith layer occurs in Mare Nectaris (9 m). A thin regolith layer is a characteristic of the cryptomare Schiller-Schickard. Very small regolith thickness corresponds to the crater floors. In this case, the model cannot yield reliable estimates of thickness; it predicts only a characteristic distance between rock inclusions buried in regolith. A thick highland regolith occurs at the southeast portion of the lunar disk and the highland to the north of Mare Imbrium and Sinus Iridium. For the lunar nearside, the regolith thickness generally correlates with the surface age: the greater the age, the thicker the regolith. The results are consistent with a higher rate of regolith growth for times earlier than 3.5 byr ago, when meteorite flux was much higher.

So the regolith is an average of 5 meters thick in the maria and 12 meters thick in the highlands, or call it 16 feet and 39 feet if you prefer.

I suspect what you are referring to is how much of the regolith is compacted versus how much is uncompacted, and you're right that the the regolith a few inches below the surface is compacted, but it's still regolith.