Do you know that the first moon walk disproved evolutionary theory?

Question

Evolutionists predicted that a 4.5 billion year old moon would have lunar dust 50 feet deep--but when Neil Armstrong stepped down, he stepped on solid ground. Wrong again!!

For more details: http://home.bluemarble.net/~heartcom/inthebeginning.html

Answer 1

I suggest you contact Harvard, MIT or Stanford. Universities give degrees for this type of scientific discovery. Congratulations professor!

Answer 2

Lets use some logic here....

We raced to the moon in a matter of years in the 1960's w/ no computers, no real technology, etc. And we got there, even drove a car around for a bit.

Yet today, they say it will take at least 20 yrs to design something to return to the moon. Why? We are so modern today that we should be able to build something in just a year and fly there like a plane almost. So why does it take so long?

Cause we never went in the first place but few can or will grasp that reality. There is even documented and video proof that it was fake. Video proof from the astronauts themselves while IN the capsule.

Don't believe every web site you read...99% of what you see before you, is lies. Remember who's world this really is. If you want some good, mind blowing knowledge, then watch this 50 (might be more now) part series on the AntiChrist.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=6F7CFDACE39C01BA

It will help show you some of the lies before you, why they are there, etc.

Answer 3

The irony of the item is that instead of debunking evolution it easily helps the main tenets of the technique. Creationists dangle onto the wish based perception that there is not any available way that our species (forget approximately each and all the others) could have grow to be by way of some random technique. yet, people who understand the technique of evolution (observe: no one believes in evolution as evolution isn't a perception. creation is a perception, evolution is an expertise) understand the way version and decision pressures tension substitute in a species. this is the buildup of those alterations that consequence interior the form of a clean species. for that reason, evolution is a random experience and while the trait fits our surroundings, the organism with the hot trait survives. for this reason, comparable contributors of the evolutionary tree can co-exist as they the two in effective condition our surroundings. we've different forms of canines, trees, fish and, interior the previous, humanoids (Neanderthal and Homo Sapien). to that end, Sahelanthropus tchadensis is merely a sort of possibility activities. Evolution is info finding for an evidence the place creation is an evidence finding for info.

Answer 4

Not true at all. This number made a number of assumptions. It was a worst case scenario that needed to be considered in the moon landing. The data was based on Earth high altitude measurements of particles and it was assumed that they were all extraterrestrial. Mt. Pinatubo showed this was clearly untrue and a lot were probably ordinary air polution. Second, it assumed that dust would remain as dust. The lunar surface is bombarded by high energy particles. This leads to the process of vacuum cementing. The first moonwalk led to the collection of moon rocks that confirmed the age of the Moon.

Answer 5

No evolutionist predicted that.

Astronomers hypothesized it.

Astronomers do not deal with the theory of evolution.

Further, Armstrong did not step on solid ground, he stepped on a layer of dust an inch or so deep. Otherwise, he'd have left no footprints.

Further study of the bases of the hypothesis showed what was flawed in the underlying assumptions, and the assumptions were corrected.

That's where science and religion differ -- Science corrects itself when it errs. Religion does not.

Answer 6

First off, I highly doubt evolutionists are predicting things outside their realm of expertise. Sorry this is chalk full of bull crap. And 50 feet of dust is just like sand <.< you walk on 50 feet of sand do you sink down, no come on. Get a grip

Answer 7

Where did you get that moon dust story ? I've read tons of material about the moon studies , but never came across that one. There are two kinds of moon data - - - the kind you look up , and the kind you make up .

Answer 8

Obviously you're oblivious to the fact that compacted dust that is exposed to solar radiation on a regular basis will solidify.

In fact if you look up samples of lunar regolith, you'll find that this is exactly what has happened.

Answer 9

Jayden, Jayden, Jayden....

Evolutionists don't care about the moon, this post confirms your ignorance of evolution...

if you're referring to astronomy, your bible claims that the moon is a light source, so why wasn't armstrong blinded by the brightness of the moon? oh yeah, it's just reflecting the sun's light....

Answer 10

I'd seen that along time ago on discovery channel . Something about their calculations being off. Bet they wouldn't admit to their calculations of the age of the earth being off.