Where Evolution falls short - Please read first post

Talk about religion here
Forum rules
Please read the forum rules carefully before you post.

If you like AnimorphsFanForum.com, please consider making a donation. Any donation will go towards the cost of the hosting, the domain and any other running costs.
User avatar
Current
Eldritch Abomination
Eldritch Abomination
Posts: 1780
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:20 pm
Favourite Animorph: Rachel
Location: Southwestern quartersphere

Re: Where Evolution falls short - Please read first post

Post by Current » Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:58 pm

Well, if that's your biggest issue with the ToE, allow me to put your mind at ease. Old moon dust estimates were found to be wrong quite some time ago. I could quote Talk.Origins on this, but lest you accuse me of using biased sources, hear it from Andrew Snelling and David Rush, both of them creationists:
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 meteorite and
meteoritic dust bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale
What is not the answer to this question?

User avatar
Blu
Rampant Drunk
Rampant Drunk
Posts: 4650
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:07 am
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Location: Behind you

Re: Where Evolution falls short - Please read first post

Post by Blu » Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:28 pm

Tobias_Marco wrote:<The biggest problem that I see with evolution is that the moon shows that it did not have enough time to happen.>

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... facts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

<According to the "giant impact" theory, the young Earth had no moon. At some point in Earth's early history, a rogue planet, larger than Mars, struck the Earth in a great, glancing blow. Instantly, most of the rogue body and a sizable chunk of Earth were vaporized. The cloud rose to above 13,700 miles (22,000 kilometers) altitude, where it condensed into innumerable solid particles that orbited the Earth as they aggregated into ever larger moonlets, which eventually combined to form the moon.>
<Scientists have tryed measuring the ages of lunar rocks, and they say that the moon is about 4.6 billion years old, or about the same age as Earth.>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"The Moon is the only celestial body on which humans have made a manned landing. While the Soviet Union's Luna programme was the first to reach the Moon with unmanned spacecraft, the United States' NASA Apollo program achieved the only manned missions to date, beginning with the first manned lunar orbiting mission by Apollo 8 in 1968, and six manned lunar landings between 1969 and 1972—the first being Apollo 11 in 1969. These missions returned over 380 kg of lunar rocks, which have been used to develop a detailed geological understanding of the Moon's origins (it is thought to have formed some 4.5 billion years ago in a giant impact), the formation of its internal structure, and its subsequent history."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"The Apollo program was the American spaceflight endeavor which landed the first humans on Earth's Moon. Conceived during the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower and conducted by NASA, Apollo began in earnest after President John F. Kennedy's May 25, 1961 special address to a joint session of Congress declaring a national goal of "landing a man on the Moon" by the end of the decade.[1][2]

This goal was accomplished with the Apollo 11 mission on July 20, 1969 when astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the Moon, while Michael Collins remained in lunar orbit. Five subsequent Apollo missions also landed astronauts on the Moon, the last in December 1972. In these six Apollo spaceflights, 12 men walked on the Moon. These are the only times humans have landed on another celestial body.[3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_module" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"The Apollo Lunar Module (LM) was the lander portion of the Apollo spacecraft built for the US Apollo program by Grumman to carry a crew of two from lunar orbit to the surface and back. Six such craft successfully landed on the Moon between 1969–1972."

<With all this in mind when NASA went to the moon they though that because the moon had been around for 4.5 billion years, that it must have a lot of space dust on it. So they gave the Lunar Module really long legs that they thought would sink into the deep layer of dust on the moon. However when they got there, the layer of dirt was less then an inch deep, not the foot or two that they thought they would find.>
I'm sorry to say this, but... your arguement is laughably uninformed.

You think the moon being 4.5-4.6 billion years old disproves evolution? You argue that it means life didn't have enough time to evolve?

TM, the first life forms are estimated to have arrived roughly 3.5-3.7 billion years ago. That's about a billion years difference from when the moon was formed. The formation of the moon does not come close to having an effect on abiogenesis or evolution.

3.5-3.7 billion years is enough for evolution. If you want to give a real arguement here, you need to show how evolution cannot act this fast, instead of just claiming that it's not enough time.

User avatar
Wild Cowboy
Warrior
Warrior
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:12 pm
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Favourite Animorph: Cassie

Re: Where Evolution falls short - Please read first post

Post by Wild Cowboy » Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:33 am

<Now hold on there buddy!>
<If I read this right the T-Rex was killed off by a rock hitting the earth, but the moon was formed by a bigger rock hitting the earth.>
<Seems to me that if the moon formed in the way TM just said, then it would have boiled the seas, killing any and all life that may have been here at the time.>
<If this be not the case, that please tell me what I am missing.>
Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. (Matthew 11:28-30)

User avatar
Blu
Rampant Drunk
Rampant Drunk
Posts: 4650
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:07 am
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Location: Behind you

Re: Where Evolution falls short - Please read first post

Post by Blu » Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:25 am

Wild Cowboy wrote: <Seems to me that if the moon formed in the way TM just said, then it would have boiled the seas, killing any and all life that may have been here at the time.>
<If this be not the case, that please tell me what I am missing.>
You seem to be missing my last post, because you don't appear to have read it!

The moon formed about a billion years before life even came about!

User avatar
Current
Eldritch Abomination
Eldritch Abomination
Posts: 1780
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:20 pm
Favourite Animorph: Rachel
Location: Southwestern quartersphere

Re: Where Evolution falls short - Please read first post

Post by Current » Sat Jul 24, 2010 6:25 pm

Yeah, pretty much what Blu said. The moon's origin didn't kill anything because there was nothing to kill yet.
What is not the answer to this question?

Prod
Civilian
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:55 am
Gender: [Male][/Male]

Re: Where Evolution falls short - Please read first post

Post by Prod » Thu Jul 29, 2010 8:28 pm

I read most of the OP. I say most because about halfway through you deviated from your nice readable paragraphs to blocks of text that made my eyes bleed.

From what I did read, you say you can group people into two absolute catagories. That is highly arrogant and insubstantial to your argument, not to mention you forbid a particular sort of person to post, a sort of person that I'm beginning to think that you yourself should be catagorised into. It is also highly arrogant to talk of Truth when the only "evidence" to support it is your own faith. Faith is not truth, just a state of mind.

Your arguments are biased. This is to be expected of course, but not to this degree. Not only do you present misinformation, you twist it to sound like fact. You ask for proof and push forward your own claims based on faith. You refuse to post sources, and claim those sources to be irrelevent in the face of truth. "Truth is truth" I believe you posted in some manner.

I'm not going to post arguments for or against evolution, even though I subscribe to evolution. Others are already doing it, and I feel I would just repeat points already made. Although I resent being catagorised, I'm open to new information, and Darwin himself said that a single fossil will shatter the theory of evolution.

If you want to be taken seriously, and I do not mean in this forum because I believe the people who replied to this topic are being incredibly kind to you, please keep the following in mind:

1. Present your arguments in reader-friendly paragraphs. This will not only persuade more people to read it, despite it's apparent length, it will keep interest and attention.

2. Post sources for your arguments if they require them. You claim to be arguing from a scientific and philosophical standpoint, whoever you present few sources.

3. Try and be unbiased in your analysis of the evidence. Or at least as unbiased as you can without betraying your standpoint. Not only will more people take you seriously, it conveys respect and you will receive respect in turn.

Finally, please try not to use Wikipedia. Wikipedia is open to everyone to edit and contribute, and some people will add false information. If you must, use Wikipedia as an initial step, treat it as basics and go from there. There are usually related links and sources at the bottom of the page. Often Wikipedia pages are a summary of the sources listed, and those sources would be better to read.

You say you're open to new information and presumably new ways of thinking. In this case, I highly recommend Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion". In this comparitivly short book, Dawkins goes through many arguments both for and against God, and why. Topics include: Respect, The God Hypothesis, Arguments for God, Arguments against God, The roots of religion, Morality, and others. At the back there is a long list of references of where he got every little thing.

Prod
Civilian
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:55 am
Gender: [Male][/Male]

Re: Where Evolution falls short - Please read first post

Post by Prod » Thu Jul 29, 2010 8:32 pm

Current wrote:Yeah, pretty much what Blu said. The moon's origin didn't kill anything because there was nothing to kill yet.
Another theory is that the impact that created the moon obliterated the life already developing and set back life on Earth another billion or so years. What would the Earth be like today if the moon didn't exist? Would we be more advanced, or would we even exist at all? Would it be better that we didn't exist, seeing how we're plundering the Earth and destroying habitats?

User avatar
Current
Eldritch Abomination
Eldritch Abomination
Posts: 1780
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:20 pm
Favourite Animorph: Rachel
Location: Southwestern quartersphere

Re: Where Evolution falls short - Please read first post

Post by Current » Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:48 pm

Prod wrote:Would it be better that we didn't exist, seeing how we're plundering the Earth and destroying habitats?
Bit of a step away from the topic, isn't it? :) Then again, we have other evolution threads and the reason this one was any different from the others, namely the author, seems to be busy with other things (or maybe just thinks we're all lost cases and there's nothing to be gained from replying further) so who knows what this thread is supposed to be about anyway.

So ignoring my rambling above, what standards are you using to measure "better"? Is the total absence of sapient life worth habitats not being destroyed by it, once you take into account that habitat destruction, damage to the ecosystem, etc. can also happen with no human influence?

I'd argue no, but this is quite subjective.
What is not the answer to this question?

User avatar
Blu
Rampant Drunk
Rampant Drunk
Posts: 4650
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:07 am
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Location: Behind you

Re: Where Evolution falls short - Please read first post

Post by Blu » Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:55 am

No more arguments? Come on guys, give me something to work on! :D

User avatar
Dr Sario
GIMPer
GIMPer
Posts: 3604
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:32 am
Gender: [Female][/Female]
Favourite Animorph: Tobias
Location: Computer

Re: Where Evolution falls short - Please read first post

Post by Dr Sario » Thu Aug 19, 2010 9:45 am

Blu wrote:No more arguments? Come on guys, give me something to work on! :D
In that case, we should get someone to argue with you...
Where's Snoopy?
"He who fights monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster."
Image