Child dies of cancer

[bullethead]

If you have studied the happenings at Mt St Helens, you know that certain types of coal can be made in just a couple of decades.

I have not studied it before doing a quick search when you brought it up.
What I have found is that the creationist sites say what you are trying to say...the coal can be made in just a couple decades.
And
That the type of "coal" which is made from treebark and peat in Pa instead of the type found in Mt St Helens is the type that takes thousands and millions of years to make.
The link I provided tells you that.

 

[NE GA Pappy]

let me know when you have pondered the lunar lander over for a bit and figured out why NASA took the astronauts seats out of it, rather than shorten the legs to save weight.

 

[bullethead]

let me know when you have pondered the lunar lander over for a bit and figured out why NASA took the astronauts seats out of it, rather than shorten the legs to save weight.

I'm gonna be honest with you, I'll probably not give it much thought.

 

[NE GA Pappy]

I'm gonna be honest with you, I'll probably not give it much thought.

OK... what ever you decide.

 

[atlashunter]

ever heard of Glenrose Tx?

I’ve been there. Those tracks have been studied and are widely believed to be dinosaur tracks. How about something more conclusive like human fossils found in Jurassic period rock?

 

[atlashunter]

let me know when you have pondered the lunar lander over for a bit and figured out why NASA took the astronauts seats out of it, rather than shorten the legs to save weight.

Wow. You must be reading from a creationist book from the 80’s. Was it the one that explained ancient people moved huge stone blocks with the sound of their trumpets and that may explain how they brought down the walls of Jericho? If so, I had that book too. It also had this argument about the moon dust. One that even creationists have since abandoned. Guess you didn’t get the memo.

https://answersingenesis.org/kids/astronomy/moon-dust-argument-no-longer-useful/

 

[ambush80]

Wow. You must be reading from a creationist book from the 80’s. Was it the one that explained ancient people moved huge stone blocks with the sound of their trumpets and that may explain how they brought down the walls of Jericho? If so, I had that book too. It also had this argument about the moon dust. One that even creationists have since abandoned. Guess you didn’t get the memo.

https://answersingenesis.org/kids/astronomy/moon-dust-argument-no-longer-useful/

Holy cow.

What is all this you're referencing? It sounds fantastic. Where can I find out more about it?

 

[atlashunter]

Holy cow.

What is all this you're referencing? It sounds fantastic. Where can I find out more about it?

I wish I still had that book or could remember the name. It would be interesting to look through now. Would have been published in the late 80s I think or possibly as late as 90/91. Trying to recall now when it was given to me and I think it was around 1990. Had all kinds of good stuff. The Nephilim human/angel hybrid giants. The evidence of Noah’s ark including the firmament of water that used to exist in the upper atmosphere which was split and fell to earth to create the flood. Ancient people using sound waves to levitate objects. The Paluxy River beds in Glenrose. The dozens of feet of moon dust that NASA expected to encounter but instead they found less than 10,000 years worth of dust accumulation! Lots of gems in that book.

 

[matt79brown]

I've heard the argument from believers who say ''I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist.'' I just plain ain't smart nuff to be an Atheist. Guess I'll put my head back in the wonderful sand from which it was made so long ago.

 

[ky55]

I wish I still had that book or could remember the name. It would be interesting to look through now. Would have been published in the late 80s I think or possibly as late as 90/91. Trying to recall now when it was given to me and I think it was around 1990. Had all kinds of good stuff. The Nephilim human/angel hybrid giants. The evidence of Noah’s ark including the firmament of water that used to exist in the upper atmosphere which was split and fell to earth to create the flood. Ancient people using sound waves to levitate objects. The Paluxy River beds in Glenrose. The dozens of feet of moon dust that NASA expected to encounter but instead they found less than 10,000 years worth of dust accumulation! Lots of gems in that book.

Ken Ham is the guy who is currently wielding the shovel.

https://answersingenesis.org/

 

[Spotlite]

Assumptions are there from the beginning

There is a huge message in that statement that will go right over.

I completed a course of training several years ago that had 40 hours dedicated to facts, evidence, and conclusions. The class was broken into several small groups and the assignment was for each group to prove to the entire class that the color red, was actually red, based on the facts, evidence, conclusions and its relationship to an assumption.

The result was;
1. Assumption - the shade of color is red

2. Fact - Identified properties that result in that shade of color.

3. Evidence - Test those properties result in that shade of color.

3. Conclusion - We reasonably assume that we can identify this shade of color as red.

The moral of the exercise - you may be able to prove how you determined your conclusion, but your conclusion doesn’t necessarily prove that your assumption is correct.

 

[bullethead]

OK... what ever you decide.

You are using the creationist playbook as your basis and Science just does not back it up.

 

[matt79brown]

Funny how these scientist know beyond a shadow of a doubt what was going on a million years ago yet most of them can't tell you their very own great great grandfather's name or where he lived! What we ''know'' verses what we think we ''know'' is often two different things.

 

[NE GA Pappy]

You are using the creationist playbook as your basis and Science just does not back it up.

You are using the creationist playbook as your basis and Science just does not back it up.

how would you know? you said you weren't going to look at the facts, so it is surprising to me that you know what the actual science is in this case.

why were those lunar lander legs so long? at the cost of other useful items they could have taken? inquiring minds want to know. Closed minds thinks science doesn't back it up

 

[bullethead]

how would you know? you said you weren't going to look at the facts, so it is surprising to me that you know what the actual science is in this case.

why were those lunar lander legs so long? at the cost of other useful items they could have taken? inquiring minds want to know. Closed minds thinks science doesn't back it up

I was just trying to avoid a derailment convo. A quick search shows all that came up about lunar lander leg specific length was creationist websites that made the same claims almost word for word.
The nasa and .gov didn't even address the length of legs for moon dust, they talk about the many ideas for the legs to fit in the craft, deploy and how they used a crushable honeycomb design for impact instead of shock absorbers
The length of legs wouldn't matter. The size of the pads would make up for any soft soil..
They wouldn't be so concerned about designing shock absorbers if the surface was a soft powder and they were worried about sinking.

At your claim of needing 6ft legs to stay above the moon dust, the astronauts would find it hard to walk in 3,4, 5ft of powder yet the pics show footprints that are maybe a half inch. And the lander pads clearly on top of the surface not sunken.

 

[WaltL1]

I've heard the argument from believers who say ''I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist.'' I just plain ain't smart nuff to be an Atheist. Guess I'll put my head back in the wonderful sand from which it was made so long ago.

I bet you are.
No gods have been proven to exist.
Therefore Atheists don't believe gods exist.
It doesn't require one to be a brainiac to understand that

 

[NE GA Pappy]

yet the pics show footprints that are maybe a half inch. And the lander pads clearly on top of the surface not sunken.

that is the issue, we know the rate of deposition of dust on the moon. The moon is a undisturbed place, either by man or atmosphere. what dust lands there stays there. If the earth and moon were 4.6 billion years old, then the dust should have been much,much deeper. BUT IT AIN'T!

 

[WaltL1]

NE GA Pappy said:
how would you know? you said you weren't going to look at the facts, so it is surprising to me that you know what the actual science is in this case.

why were those lunar lander legs so long? at the cost of other useful items they could have taken? inquiring minds want to know. Closed minds thinks science doesn't back it up

I was just trying to avoid a derailment convo. A quick search shows all that came up about lunar lander leg specific length was creationist websites that made the same claims almost word for word.
The nasa and .gov didn't even address the length of legs for moon dust, they talk about the many ideas for the legs to fit in the craft, deploy and how they used a crushable honeycomb design for impact instead of shock absorbers
The length of legs wouldn't matter. The size of the pads would make up for any soft soil..
They wouldn't be so concerned about designing shock absorbers if the surface was a soft powder and they were worried about sinking.

At your claim of needing 6ft legs to stay above the moon dust, the astronauts would find it hard to walk in 3,4, 5ft of powder yet the pics show footprints that are maybe a half inch. And the lander pads clearly on top of the surface not sunken.

Is this what you guys are talking about?
Seems to me the length of the legs would be determined by how high it had to sit so that "stuff" underneath it/between the legs wouldn't get crushed.
And it seems to me those legs would be a whole lot longer if they expected it to sink 3/4/5 however many feet.

 

[bullethead]

that is the issue, we know the rate of deposition of dust on the moon. The moon is a undisturbed place, either by man or atmosphere. what dust lands there stays there. If the earth and moon were 4.6 billion years old, then the dust should have been much,much deeper. BUT IT AIN'T!

http://don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/moondust.html

 

[bullethead]

that is the issue, we know the rate of deposition of dust on the moon. The moon is a undisturbed place, either by man or atmosphere. what dust lands there stays there. If the earth and moon were 4.6 billion years old, then the dust should have been much,much deeper. BUT IT AIN'T!

The rate creationists THINK it should be and what it really is are two different things. It does not get get anywhere near the dust per year that creationists claim.
The link addresses that.