Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Significant Passings
#61
Is that the best you can do?

Prior to the moon landings, many scientists and science fiction writers believed that the rate of cosmic dust infall on the moon was quite large, based on estimates of the current rate of infalling dust in earth's atmosphere. Robert Heinlein in one of his stories that I recall postulated pools of cosmic dust hundreds of feet deep. (I believe it was Have Spacesuit Will Travel.)

Serious back and filling has taken place among evolutionist zealots since then, to try to explain away the impossible contradiction to what was considered well-established scientific fact before the landings. This is one of the things that confirms to me how utterly dishonest and unscientific evolutionists have revealed themselves to be, in the face of striking contradiction by concrete evidence. The truth is, evolutionists are lying about everything, and some of them actually know it. The rest of you are dupes as gullible as any collectivist follower of the political left.

Evolution is not sound science! No one who believes in evolution is a real scientist, no matter how they are acclaimed by their complicit peers. The very idea of evolution is stupid, because it is mathematically impossible in terms of rate of change possible by any genetic mutations, compared to the immense complexity of information required to code for entirely new characteristics, like wings, or eyes, or lungs, in species where they did not exist before. And then multiplying the impossibility is the fact that many traits that can be expressed already exist in the genomes of most species (thus wolves can give rise to coyotes or greyhounds or cocker spaniels when the environment is right)--and evolutionists have not postulated any way that natural selection can work with mutation to produce alternate coding when the coding is NOT EXPRESSED WHEN IT IS BEING CODED! These alternate characteristics that already exist in the genomes which can be switched on simply by flipping one or two genetic on/off switches (some of which have already been identified as such), can only be explained by a Creator deliberately programming these alternate characteristics in the genomes of each species, in order to allow the species to adapt readily to changing environments. This PROVES Creation!
Reply
#62
Ron, we do this because we love you, and are laughing with you, not at you. S1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#63
(08-27-2012, 12:51 PM)ghoullio Wrote: The amount of dust is something like 20 tons a day. Over several billions of years that adds up to a few inches.

On the moon? Not by far. Earth gets 40 tonnes per day, and the moon has only a mass of 0.0123 earths.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#64
The estimate was much higher prior to the lunar landings. They were revised downward arbitrarily afterward, for no demonstrable reason.

By the way, the moon's gravity is about one-sixth that of earth. And the moon constantly sweeps around in the dust cloud gathered by the earth.
Reply
#65
Arbitrarily? Because the probe they landed didnt show several feet of dust means it was arbitrary?

I give up, man. You win. You are far too intelligent for me. Must be all that marijuana I smoke. Good luck, fellow Janes. If morons like Lambert get ahold of the reins this is what you have to look forward to!

Piece, bitches!
Reply
#66
I notice no one has refuted my arguments or dealt with my evidences. Condescension and disparagement and ridicule are not arguments.

Ghoullio, isn't it obvious scientists committed to evolution did arbitrarily reduce their estimates of the amount of cosmic dust infalling earth and moon AFTER the lunar landings showed the dust was only half an inch deep or so on the lunar surface? Rather than admit their evolutionist/gradualist paradigms were in error, they decided to claim that their science was in error when they originally estimated how much dust infalls the earth and moon on a regular basis. They made no new measurements of the rate of infalling cosmic dust in earth's atmosphere. They just arbitrarily reinterpreted the same measurements they previously had gotten. Is this the way science is supposed to work? Safeguard one's preferred assumptions at all costs?

And no one has ever suggested any answer to my arguments based on genetics, especially the one about there being many alternate characteristics in the genomes of most species that are not expressed until environmental conditions or whatever causes them to be switched on--therefore could not have been coded by natural selection operating with mutation. I'm not talking genius level logic, here. I am talking basic sane reasoning. But that seems to have little impact on those who do not welcome it. If it is not fashionable, then snub it, no matter what evidence must be ignored. Then lie about there being "no" evidence of Creation and against evolution.
Reply
#67
I would say any estimate of how much dust is on the moon was arbitrary until the first probes landed there. I'm 50 years old and as I said, I have never heared of the assumption that there were 500 feet of dust until this thread. Why Heinlein thought so I can't tell, but isn't it staring right into our faces every night that there is little dust? All those sharp craters and ridges would be obscured, and the moon not have all those shades between white and black.
And for genetics, it took earth almost 4 billion years to put the basics of the genome together, and the switching on and off of genes started in the Cambrian explosion. I have no idea why this is difficult to understand.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#68
The dirty old man is dead: Longtime GOP Senate moderate Arlen Specter dies.

Here is what this nice old gentleman has to say, when he has to wait through a commercial: he throws a fit.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#69
The Sphincter is dead! Horaaaayy.
Reply
#70
Sihanouk.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#71
There are many Leftists who have left this life already. Ted Kennedy and his ilk did much harm to the country, but they do not live forever. The ones like Clinton and Spector were about power, but used issues to garner it. Once they are gone, others may pop up - but they may have more logic and less chicanery. There will always be multiple sides to any argument - but maybe we are losing the worst by attrition.
Reply
#72
By Clinton, if you are referring to "The Beast", I agree. But as for "Bubba", I don't consider him to be of any particular ideological persuasion, other than that of the consummate Opportunist. As long as Bubba was able to enjoy living in the number one mansion, fly in the neatest jets, get constant salutes, and have access to all the 'leg' possible, that is all that mattered to him.

And that is why he made absolutely certain the economy was kept rolling, not out of political ideology. Rather it was to enjoy more of the above, in unrestricted fashion.

Bubba was not a Leftist by a long shot.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#73
He was a Leftist until the polls said he should move in another direction. He was the quintessential pragmatist. You're right that Hillary was more cooked-in with her issues - but I think she acquired the power-desire in Bill's shadow.

Obama doesn't care about money. He figures he is owed everything and it will come no matter what happens. If he wasn't so clueless about how to push his issues, he would be much more troublesome.
Reply
#74
(10-15-2012, 11:55 PM)WmLambert Wrote: Obama doesn't care about money. He figures he is owed everything and it will come no matter what happens. If he wasn't so clueless about how to push his issues, he would be much more troublesome.

If he does get reelected, you may not think that way, once he starts throwing out presidential directives left and right. That will be when the SS will be working overtime just to keep him alive.

I'll bet you his golf game will suffer in a second term, because of the target opportunities available to an expert. Spiteful
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#75
John, you have got to read The Amateur. 2016 was great at explaining Obama's roots and principles, but this book is great at explaining his methods (or lack of them). Klein is accused of being less than truthful at times, but reading the piece holds together quite well, and describes many of the people behind the scenes. Understanding Jarrett, Axlerod, Emanual, Daley, Michelle, and others, makes the book well worth reading - and leads to research we can do on our own to vet what is said.

One thing is obvious: Obama has alienated almost everyone he could use to further his ambitions, and is served by a shrinking number of adherents. When you consider that Axlerod, Jarrett, and Michelle are as limited as they are - but are his top advisers - you understand much about Obama's ways.
Reply
#76
Never agreed with George, but, he was one of the pols who I think everyone in the know came to believe was authentic, right or wrong. So, I lament his passing as a fellow citizen. Guy had a huge loss when his daughter preceded him in death.



http://hosted.ap.org/interactives/2012/g...index.html
Reply
#77
I believe this goes here............................
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#78
If Humphrey had lived, McGovern may never have become famous.
Reply
#79
Robert Bork died.

Bork was possibly the best candidate for the Supreme Court in history. He was defeated on partisan vote based on lies and disinformation. His book, “Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline” (1996) is still required reading if you presume to have a clue. His withdrawal and replacement by Arthur Kennedy marked the measurable decline of the Supreme Court.
Reply
#80
Norman Schwarzkopf.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)