"creation science" outside of America?

[David Gould]

Originally posted by paulewog
Yeah, well, for the longest time, science thought bleeding people helped, and science thought the world was geocentric.

And, people are trying to throw out the idea of God, too.

People try to throw IN the idea that global warming is coming. It was an imminent ice age earlier this century, I wonder where that went?

Anyway, point is, evidence against YEC can be taken both ways.

Hey, something I have NEVER EVER EVER had an answer to. Where's the feet of moon dust on the moon? Why is there so little?!

For info on the moondust try answers in genesis. They have admitted that that is a completely bogus argument and I think they go through it pretty well.

 

[David Gould]

wrong thread!

 

[lithium.]

heh

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by paulewog
Yeah, well, for the longest time, science thought bleeding people helped, and science thought the world was geocentric.

And, people are trying to throw out the idea of God, too.

People try to throw IN the idea that global warming is coming. It was an imminent ice age earlier this century, I wonder where that went?

Anyway, point is, evidence against YEC can be taken both ways.

Hey, something I have NEVER EVER EVER had an answer to. Where's the feet of moon dust on the moon? Why is there so little?!

Someone answered your question when you asked it a few days ago.

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by paulewog
Yeah, well, for the longest time, science thought bleeding people helped, and science thought the world was geocentric.

And, people are trying to throw out the idea of God, too.

People try to throw IN the idea that global warming is coming. It was an imminent ice age earlier this century, I wonder where that went?

Anyway, point is, evidence against YEC can be taken both ways.

Hey, something I have NEVER EVER EVER had an answer to. Where's the feet of moon dust on the moon? Why is there so little?!

 

Don't be silly, it was those superstitions that science supplanted.  Once the philosophy of reason took hold and people began to look at the world using it the stupid idiotic traditional superstitions that people had believed for so long were thrown out.  Things like bleeding people, geocentrism, etc fell by the wayside.  As for global warming and such, why not look at what climatic scientists say about it instead of the chicken little environmentalists or the idiotic press?  You'd be suprised.

 

As for moon dust:

"It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system." 

Snelling, Andrew A., and David E. Rush, 1993. "Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System" in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 7, No. 1, pp. 2-42.


Note that this is from a creationist journal.

 

[Auntie]

Originally posted by Tinman
One of the great things about being an Aussie is that we're naturally skeptical of people with strong beliefs in anything, with the exceptions of cricket and football.

Btw, congratulations to Glenn McGrath on his 400th Test wicket.

......gotta love the Aussies.

 

[andybell]

I must say that going to school here in Queensland we were taught the basics of evolution but absoutley nothing about creation. I was not a Christian while at school but still couldn't fully agree on evolution as being the whole answer. I didn't even know about YEC until about a year or so after becoming a Christian the AiG group came to the Church I attend to do a seminar. That is about the reach of YEC here. I know of some Christian private schools that teach evolution...

 

[ocean]

The Christian private school I went to in the 8th and 9th grades ( My parents were hardline fundamentalist Christians) ONLY taught YEC, and their "arguments" against evolution were nothing but the usual YEC "refutations": strawmen and Bible verses. Needless to say, I transfered out of that school.

This was a while ago, and it's only getting worse, especially in the part of America I grew up in.

 

[DocBrown]

Originally posted by MSBS
  



As for moon dust:

"It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system." 

Snelling, Andrew A., and David E. Rush, 1993. "Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System" in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 7, No. 1, pp. 2-42.


Note that this is from a creationist journal.

I have only this to say about the moon dust thing. And that is that I was actually there setting in front of the TV in 1969 when they interviewed sceintists and there was great concern that when they landed they might well find several feet of dust. I don't need to get this from any web site or book I was there in person and heard it with my own ears.

Didn't think us old people were worth hearing from did you? Perhaps someone on this board may try to call me a liar or tell me I didn't really see and hear what I did but I know this is a fact.

And after the moon landing ideas of a young earth were coming out of all the research institutes. Everyone was scrambling around trying to figure out how the moon could be old and yet have so little dust.

Off topic here aren't we? Sorry.

 

 

 

[Morat]

People try to throw IN the idea that global warming is coming. It was an imminent ice age earlier this century, I wonder where that went?

   You mean global cooling and nuclear winter? Why do you think the US (and the rest of the world) cut back heavily on particulate matter emissions in the 1960s and 70s? To prevent exactly that. Once particulate matter emissions were down, other issues become more relevant.

 

I have only this to say about the moon dust thing. And that is that I was actually there setting in front of the TV in 1969 when they interviewed sceintists and there was great concern that when they landed they might well find several feet of dust. I don't need to get this from any web site or book I was there in person and heard it with my own ears.

Didn't think us old people were worth hearing from did you? Perhaps someone on this board may try to call me a liar or tell me I didn't really see and hear what I did but I know this is a fact.

And after the moon landing ideas of a young earth were coming out of all the research institutes. Everyone was scrambling around trying to figure out how the moon could be old and yet have so little dust.

   How odd. One would think that the landing of the Surveyor 1 craft in 1966 would have laid that to rest, don't you think?

  I'm afraid, Sir, that your memory is simply faulty. It was, after all, a long time ago.

   The facts of the matter are, however, a matter of record. No one was expecting even as much as a few feet of dust by 1965, as better measurements of space-debris had been performed. But when the Surveyor I probe landed, the matter was settled.

   I'm not sure how to reconcile the fact that probes had already landed on the moon and reported it "Not covered in dust" with your claims that "They were worried about dust".

 

 

[DocBrown]

Originally posted by Morat
   You mean global cooling and nuclear winter? Why do you think the US (and the rest of the world) cut back heavily on particulate matter emissions in the 1960s and 70s? To prevent exactly that. Once particulate matter emissions were down, other issues become more relevant.

 



   How odd. One would think that the landing of the Surveyor 1 craft in 1966 would have laid that to rest, don't you think?

  I'm afraid, Sir, that your memory is simply faulty. It was, after all, a long time ago.

   The facts of the matter are, however, a matter of record. No one was expecting even as much as a few feet of dust by 1965, as better measurements of space-debris had been performed. But when the Surveyor I probe landed, the matter was settled.

   I'm not sure how to reconcile the fact that probes had already landed on the moon and reported it "Not covered in dust" with your claims that "They were worried about dust".

 

 

Perhaps your correct. It may have been prior to 69 when I heard this. I remember it so well as I wanted us to be able to land on the moon so badly, I didn't want any problems with dust. However at the time they were very concerned about it and even questioned the attempted landing, which disappointed me greatly.

So I do admit it may have been before the probes landed. I was following this closely as I could and never could understand why we didn't continue on at the pace we were going. I feel if we had we might well be traveling outside of our solar system by now. Anyone know why we slowed down?

I guess I'm really one for hijacking a thread. Mostly though I just love to ramble. Again I say I'm sorry. 

 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by DocBrown
I feel if we had we might well be traveling outside of our solar system by now. Anyone know why we slowed down?

Politics? Economy?

I also think it's a shame we slowed down. Even if there's no practical application of the information we gain, I find the exploration of the solar system (and beyond) to be extremely fascinating.

 

[Morat]

So I do admit it may have been before the probes landed. I was following this closely as I could and never could understand why we didn't continue on at the pace we were going. I feel if we had we might well be traveling outside of our solar system by now. Anyone know why we slowed down?

  Money. NASA runs on a shoestring, compared to the Apollo days. And that budget (a mere 15 billion) is constantly on the chopping block.

   You try doing anything complex, that takes a few years minimum to design, test, and then actually perform, when each year the amount of money you have varies more or less randomly.

   And, to top it off, NASA as a whole (and I'm guessing as a result of the large expectations/small budget) has one overriding problem: Collectively, they think they can change things in mid-design, and still have contractors finish on the original time and budget.

   *shrug*. Restore funding to half the Apollo years. Guarantee funding for long-term projects seperatly, pass budgets for multiple years, not annually.

    You couldn't build a house the way NASA had to build the space station. No one could.

 

 

[Praxiteles]

To try and link these posts with the topic:

Does anyone know the extent of scientific creationism on the moon? Or, is the moon considered to be part of the US?

Cheers,
Prax

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by Praxiteles
To try and link these posts with the topic:

Does anyone know the extent of scientific creationism on the moon? Or, is the moon considered to be part of the US?

Cheers,
Prax

They have a large colony there were they try to alter the amount of moon dust in order to disprove evolution.

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams
They have a large colony there were they try to alter the amount of moon dust in order to disprove evolution.

I know of this colony!  It's the Lunar Omphalos Organisation for Natural Sciences (LOONS), isn't it?

 

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Praxiteles


I know of this colony!  It's the Lunar Omphalos Organisation for Natural Sciences (LOONS), isn't it?

 

Omphalos?

 

[Praxiteles]

IIRC, omphalos is Greek for navel.

One of the arguments used by YECists is that God created the universe with the appearance of age (as you know), an example of which would be Adam with a navel, even though he had not been born.

I'm bit hazy on this (so I stand to be corrected) but I think this argument is sometimes referred to the omphalos argument.

Cheers,
Prax

 

[Praxiteles]

Here we go! A quick google, and I found The Omphalos Argument.

If I wasn't so goshdarned lazy I'd have found it first.

Cheers,
Prax

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Oh, I knew what I meant (looked it up beforehand), just couldn't figure the reference. I knew it had to be some kind of in-joke