According to science, how does a new species develop?

[james bond]

Neither can they explain how the moon moves away from the earth and should have disappeared in billions of years.

Yes we can, dummy.

Which of course has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Its like he throws a pot of science spaghetti at the wall and everything that sticks he points to and says- "Look- that disproves evolution!"

Not ToE, but it's related to evolutionary thinking. I'm not surprised of the ignorance.

 

[james bond]

Neither can they explain how the moon moves away from the earth and should have disappeared in billions of years.

Yes we can, dummy.

No, you can't because you're a dummy. The moon is receding at a pace too fast for a 4.5 B year old moon.

Based upon reasonable postulates, observational data and the fundamental laws of physics there is proof that the moon and the earth are too young for the presumed evolution to have taken place.

"The recession of the moon is not constant over time. It would have been faster in the past. So, it is incorrect to assume that the rate has always been 4 cm/year.

Figure 1. Past (theoretical) recession rate of the moon

Figure 2. Present recession rate of the moon

Gravity is the force that keeps our moon in orbit around the earth. In Figures 1 and 2 this is represented by line “B.” If not for the gravity of the earth and moon, the moon would simply float away from the earth into space.

A major point to remember about lunar recession is that it is not constant over long periods of time. The further the moon moves away from the earth the more constant its recession seems to become.

In short, lunar recession is caused by tidal forces. Tidal forces are not the same thing as the gravity that keeps the moon orbiting around the earth. (However, they are caused by the moon’s gravity as will be shown.) The moon does more than just the rising and receding of tides along shorelines. When combined with the rotation of the earth and its gravity, these tidal forces are what cause the moon to recede away from the earth.

As we know, the moon causes tides; these are due to the fact that the moon’s gravitational force is stronger the closer you are to it. So, the moon’s gravity pulls more strongly on the side of Earth closest to the moon, and pulls less on the opposite side. This effectively “stretches” the Earth and produces two tidal bulges. The figure illustrates how the moon is actually pulling the oceans away from the earth toward itself (point 1) and causes the earth to bulge. At the same time there is a bulge produced on the opposite side of the earth (point 3) where the earth is being pulled away from the oceans.

Since the earth rotates faster than the moon orbits, the tidal bulge stays slightly ahead of the moon. With the earth bulging, the moon is “pulled” by the point of gravity (point 1), produced by the bulge, since it is closer to it (line A) than the point of gravity (point 3) at the opposite side of the earth (line C). Since the moon is constantly being pulled it is constantly accelerating. Even though the earth’s gravity (point 2) is acting as a centripetal force (line B) to keep the moon in an orbital path (dark arrow), the acceleration of the moon caused by the tidal bulge at point 1 is increasing its angular momentum, therefore moving it outward (gray arrow).

Figure 1 shows what the past (theoretical) recession rate would have looked like. Being much closer in a more-distant past, the moon would have caused larger tidal bulges, creating a greater “pulling” force (point 1, line A), increasing the angular momentum; thus the moon receded at a much greater speed (as shown by the red arrows).

With the earth where it is today (Figure 2) tidal bulges are much smaller (than the theoretical past), making the “pulling” force of point 1 smaller; thus the angular momentum is much less, resulting in the present and seemingly more-constant recession rate of 4 cm per year. The moon could never have been closer than 18,400 km (11,500 miles), known as the Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces (i.e., the result of different gravitational forces on different parts of the moon) would have shattered it."

Lunar Recession

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Neither can they explain how the moon moves away from the earth and should have disappeared in billions of years.

Yes we can, dummy.

Which of course has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Its like he throws a pot of science spaghetti at the wall and everything that sticks he points to and says- "Look- that disproves evolution!"

He's a charlatan. His arguments whittle Away to general arguments that " science cannot be trusted, because it is sometimes wrong and doesn't explain everything"...then, of course, the fraud then tries to cite science and scientists to make his case. It's embarrassing and absurd.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Neither can they explain how the moon moves away from the earth and should have disappeared in billions of years.

Yes we can, dummy.

No, you can't because you're a dummy. The moon is receding at a pace too fast for a 4.5 B year old moon.

Based upon reasonable postulates, observational data and the fundamental laws of physics there is proof that the moon and the earth are too young for the presumed evolution to have taken place.

"The recession of the moon is not constant over time. It would have been faster in the past. So, it is incorrect to assume that the rate has always been 4 cm/year.

Figure 1. Past (theoretical) recession rate of the moon

Figure 2. Present recession rate of the moon

Gravity is the force that keeps our moon in orbit around the earth. In Figures 1 and 2 this is represented by line “B.” If not for the gravity of the earth and moon, the moon would simply float away from the earth into space.

A major point to remember about lunar recession is that it is not constant over long periods of time. The further the moon moves away from the earth the more constant its recession seems to become.

In short, lunar recession is caused by tidal forces. Tidal forces are not the same thing as the gravity that keeps the moon orbiting around the earth. (However, they are caused by the moon’s gravity as will be shown.) The moon does more than just the rising and receding of tides along shorelines. When combined with the rotation of the earth and its gravity, these tidal forces are what cause the moon to recede away from the earth.

As we know, the moon causes tides; these are due to the fact that the moon’s gravitational force is stronger the closer you are to it. So, the moon’s gravity pulls more strongly on the side of Earth closest to the moon, and pulls less on the opposite side. This effectively “stretches” the Earth and produces two tidal bulges. The figure illustrates how the moon is actually pulling the oceans away from the earth toward itself (point 1) and causes the earth to bulge. At the same time there is a bulge produced on the opposite side of the earth (point 3) where the earth is being pulled away from the oceans.

Since the earth rotates faster than the moon orbits, the tidal bulge stays slightly ahead of the moon. With the earth bulging, the moon is “pulled” by the point of gravity (point 1), produced by the bulge, since it is closer to it (line A) than the point of gravity (point 3) at the opposite side of the earth (line C). Since the moon is constantly being pulled it is constantly accelerating. Even though the earth’s gravity (point 2) is acting as a centripetal force (line B) to keep the moon in an orbital path (dark arrow), the acceleration of the moon caused by the tidal bulge at point 1 is increasing its angular momentum, therefore moving it outward (gray arrow).

Figure 1 shows what the past (theoretical) recession rate would have looked like. Being much closer in a more-distant past, the moon would have caused larger tidal bulges, creating a greater “pulling” force (point 1, line A), increasing the angular momentum; thus the moon receded at a much greater speed (as shown by the red arrows).

With the earth where it is today (Figure 2) tidal bulges are much smaller (than the theoretical past), making the “pulling” force of point 1 smaller; thus the angular momentum is much less, resulting in the present and seemingly more-constant recession rate of 4 cm per year. The moon could never have been closer than 18,400 km (11,500 miles), known as the Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces (i.e., the result of different gravitational forces on different parts of the moon) would have shattered it."

Lunar Recession

You understand none of that and could not summarize any of it, if your life depended on it

 

[james bond]

Neither can they explain how the moon moves away from the earth and should have disappeared in billions of years.

Yes we can, dummy.

Which of course has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Its like he throws a pot of science spaghetti at the wall and everything that sticks he points to and says- "Look- that disproves evolution!"

He's a charlatan. His arguments whittle Away to general arguments that " science cannot be trusted, because it is sometimes wrong and doesn't explain everything"...then, of course, the fraud then tries to cite science and scientists to make his case. It's embarrassing and absurd.

The charlatans are the atheist scientists who assume practically everything. We also learned from the lunar recession article that creation scientists state that earth's magnetic field is getting less and will be gone by around 3000. Atheist scientists aren't worried because of the dynamo BS.

ETA: The moon lost its magnetic field and I would think its dynamo would work the same way. Except it didn't have a dynamo.

Earth's magnetic field is weakening 10 times faster

What Would Happen If Earth’s Magnetic Field Disappeared? | Apex Magnets Blog

 

[Syriusly]

Neither can they explain how the moon moves away from the earth and should have disappeared in billions of years.

Yes we can, dummy.

Which of course has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Its like he throws a pot of science spaghetti at the wall and everything that sticks he points to and says- "Look- that disproves evolution!"

He's a charlatan. His arguments whittle Away to general arguments that " science cannot be trusted, because it is sometimes wrong and doesn't explain everything"...then, of course, the fraud then tries to cite science and scientists to make his case. It's embarrassing and absurd.

The charlatans are the atheist scientists who assume practically everything. We also learned from the lunar recession article that creation scientists state that earth's magnetic field is getting less and will be gone by around 3000. Atheist scientists aren't worried because of the dynamo BS.

ETA: The moon lost its magnetic field and I would think its dynamo would work the same way. Except it didn't have a dynamo.

Earth's magnetic field is weakening 10 times faster

What Would Happen If Earth’s Magnetic Field Disappeared? | Apex Magnets Blog

LOL still cracks me up every time you mention 'Creation Scientists' and I think about how each time you cited a person you claimed to be a 'Creation Scientist' - your citation refuted something you had said.

 

[james bond]

Both Mars and the moon have lost their magnetic fields, and so will the earth. It means that asteroids hitting the earth and more radiation. It's evidence the creation scientists are right over the atheist ones. Atheists are wrong, again ha ha.

What Happened to Mars' Atmosphere?

Mystery of Moon's Lost Magnetism Solved?

 

[james bond]

Neither can they explain how the moon moves away from the earth and should have disappeared in billions of years.

Yes we can, dummy.

Which of course has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Its like he throws a pot of science spaghetti at the wall and everything that sticks he points to and says- "Look- that disproves evolution!"

He's a charlatan. His arguments whittle Away to general arguments that " science cannot be trusted, because it is sometimes wrong and doesn't explain everything"...then, of course, the fraud then tries to cite science and scientists to make his case. It's embarrassing and absurd.

The charlatans are the atheist scientists who assume practically everything. We also learned from the lunar recession article that creation scientists state that earth's magnetic field is getting less and will be gone by around 3000. Atheist scientists aren't worried because of the dynamo BS.

ETA: The moon lost its magnetic field and I would think its dynamo would work the same way. Except it didn't have a dynamo.

Earth's magnetic field is weakening 10 times faster

What Would Happen If Earth’s Magnetic Field Disappeared? | Apex Magnets Blog

LOL still cracks me up every time you mention 'Creation Scientists' and I think about how each time you cited a person you claimed to be a 'Creation Scientist' - your citation refuted something you had said.

Not really. The Bible is the inspired Word of God so it's complete, authoritative and inerrant. The conversations here has led me to find out about more evolutionary vs creation differences. It's not just one has the young timeline while the other has the old. I never knew until our conversations that Satan was referred to as "god of the world" and "prince of the power of the air" in the Bible. Is it just coincidence that atheists refer to God as god (lower case)?

"In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." 2 Corinthians 4:4

"2 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." Ephesians 2:1-3

Atheist science today says the earth's magnetic field is getting weaker, but hypothesize it's due to getting ready to reverse polarity. This is not true. I mean earth's polarity does reverse itself, but it's done rapidly and not slow. The weakening of the earth's magnetic field is a mystery for atheist scientists who believe in old, long earth and earth's core being a dynamo. Creation scientists think it's due to decay after creation and that the earth's magnetic field is not permanent.

 

[Syriusly]

It's evidence the creation scientists are right over the atheist ones. Atheists are wrong, again ha ha.

LOL- that is as honest as saying that Puppy scientists are right over atheist scientists.

 

[james bond]

It's evidence the creation scientists are right over the atheist ones. Atheists are wrong, again ha ha.

LOL- that is as honest as saying that Puppy scientists are right over atheist scientists.

I don't make up these things and just "happened" to find out about no magnetic field on Mars nor the moon. It means that we should not colonize there. No one argues against going to Mars or the moon because of no magnetic field. How can the earth be a dynamo when those other space bodies weren't? It's interesting that many people believe in the earth's dynamo and that earth's magnetic field is permanent. Have these scientists and people been tricked?

I can't say all of atheist science is due to the prince of the power of the air, but clearly he's lied and tricked many people in evolutionary origins and evo thinking. And now we know that he's got the moon and Mars. No person should go there if there isn't any magnetic field. Yet, people think they can overcome the lack of water and atmosphere.

While God wants people to be believers, Satan doesn't want you to know he exists. "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist." Verbal Kint.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Look at this freak...prancing and dancing and claiming "victory" for imaginary "creation science". Yet, all of the actual published science contradicts everything he claims, evolution is still considered fact, and nobody is producing any "creation science".

This, kids, is what religion can do to your brain.

 

[james bond]

Look at this freak...prancing and dancing and claiming "victory" for imaginary "creation science". Yet, all of the actual published science contradicts everything he claims, evolution is still considered fact, and nobody is producing any "creation science".

This, kids, is what religion can do to your brain.

Give it up. After page 1, your mutated pea brain exploded.

Page 1 stated mutations such as seedless watermelon do not help the watermelon as they become sterile. You can't evolve if you're sterile ha ha.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Page 1 stated mutations such as seedless watermelon do not help the watermelon as they become sterile.

You were wrong about how we develop seedless fruit on page one, you have been wrong about it for the entire thread, and you are wrong about it now. You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[MisterBeale]

I have read many many pages of this thread.

It is an insult to put it in the religious sub-forum, but it is equally an insult for those who hold science in high regard to keep it in the science sub-forum.

It should be moved to general discussion or politics.

 

[alang1216]

It's not just one has the young timeline while the other has the old.

Science says the Earth is some 4.5 billion years old. How old do you believe it is?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's not just one has the young timeline while the other has the old.

Science says the Earth is some 4.5 billion years old. How old do you believe it is?

No, really....spare yourself....

 

[alang1216]

No, really....spare yourself....

I was only trying to spare you.

 

[james bond]

It's not just one has the young timeline while the other has the old.

Science says the Earth is some 4.5 billion years old. How old do you believe it is?

Do you know how they come up with the age of the Earth as 4.5 B years old? And that science believed it was different in the past such as 6,000 years old, Lord Kelvin, the most famous physicist of his time, had it as 100 M (20 M - 400 M range) and Darwin had 306.7 M years old? Science text books change every year. So who's to say these guys are right now?

 

[james bond]

Page 1 stated mutations such as seedless watermelon do not help the watermelon as they become sterile.

You were wrong about how we develop seedless fruit on page one, you have been wrong about it for the entire thread, and you are wrong about it now. You are embarrassing yourself.

I'm not even on page 1 of this thread, so you're wrong again fool. While you looked stupie AF with this answer ha ha.

if a Mule is sterile, how are we led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue?

>>FFI: Traveling backward back in time, each species ability to produce viable offspring with an ancestor of its line decreases, as a general rule. Should you travel back in time 10,000 years, you would probably do fine to have a baby with an "ancient human".. 100,000 years? Again, kids might usually live. 1 million years? Probably not so much.

While this is a general rule, you should get the idea.<<

One can't even travel back in time. Only forward .

 

[alang1216]

It's not just one has the young timeline while the other has the old.

Science says the Earth is some 4.5 billion years old. How old do you believe it is?

Do you know how they come up with the age of the Earth as 4.5 B years old? And that science believed it was different in the past such as 6,000 years old, Lord Kelvin, the most famous physicist of his time, had it as 100 M (20 M - 400 M range) and Darwin had 306.7 M years old? Science text books change every year. So who's to say these guys are right now?

Actually I do know how how they come up with the age of the Earth as 4.5 B years old? I also know where the 6,000 yeas old number came from, and how Lord Kelvin and Darwin arrived at their numbers. I doubt you care, you only wish to attack science and ignore the fact that Lord Kelvin and Darwin estimated the minimum age of the earth. Science text books change every year.because science is progressing and not stagnant.

I also note you failed to answer my question.