I would like to retract my comments. I can see how some might find them offensive and they simply reflect my emotional state and have no baring on either science or religion...
Sorry.

To say there is no evidence of God is just as well formed an argument as to say we have never been to the moon.
I have never seen good evidence of God. I have seen moons, the moon itself, and vessels which show radiation damage you won't get on earth. Plus there is that mirror they placed up there which people can bounce lasers off of.

Originally posted by Cybermorphic
To say there is no evidence of God is just as well formed an argument as to say we have never been to the moon.

And to say that we can fly through the air with thought alone, is as well formed an argument as saying that there is a God.

I understand what you mean about the moon comment as a comparison, although there are just a lot more factors to suggest that going to the moon is feasible. Seeing the moon with our own eyes or through a telescope, putting satellites in space, using an oxygen tank on Earth underwater. It is probably better to use a more equivalent term with that phrase, perhaps saying that there is no evidence of Zeus, or saying that there are no ghosts. That would reconcile the comment a bit more clearly in my humble opinion.

Personally my theories are more agnosticism rather than atheism. "God" seems to be such a varied catch-all phrase the world over that to me the meaning of the word "God" is so very similar to the word "agnostic" itself!

If people get together among the scientific community to try to reach god there methods are denied as unscientific before they even actually fail because of the seperation in church and state

That's true. Many people tend to have their minds made up even before entering into a debate, discussion or investigation about a particular subject. Its a shame that as in principle things can get missed.

I am neither atheist or a devout religious human being, but i belive in god just not the same way as everyone else does. You are right in saying

So why am I fed up with an athiest agnostic sosciety? Because the reasoning behind it rests only on the seperation of church and state. To say there is no evidence of God is just as well formed an argument as to say we have never been to the moon.


But then again The majority of the population accepts Evrey facet of science with out proof. How does the average Joe know what Einstein was talking about even real, that he wasn't just mouthing off as a cruel joke. Even Quantam Theory is a whole lot of nothing unless you really do comprehend it. God is a belief, that's all it is, If the science community even dared to prove such a concept they would be ridiclued from the church and scientific community.


It's funny really; that the church condems the research of god through scientific method saying it de-huminizes him/her but expects us to accept the notion of a all powerful higher being with out question, seeing as we are a species that must define everything and everything must be logicalcal to our minds that seems realy paradoxical.

I would also point out that the Astronauts brought back with them pieces of the moon, chunks of rock that are definitely not from Earth. These the 'average' man can see for himself if he is dubious. Can you show me any similar evidence for God?

~Raithere

Cybermorphic:

It is quite ironic that you are criticising the nation's lack of faith, given that over 90% of the people in your nation (I assume you're talking the USA here) believe in some kind of God. It seems that there is more than enough faith to go around.

<i>Because the reasoning behind it rests only on the seperation of church and state.</i>

Really? Only on that? What is your understanding of the doctrine of the separation of church and state, Cybermorphic? It is not clear, since you don't mention it anywhere else in your post. Why do you think your Constitution was founded on a separation of church and state? Did the people who drew it up have any reason, do you think? Were they all atheists? I don't think they were. So what other reason do you think they might have had?

<i>Science teaches us that we have been to the moon, but individuals who believe in this have never actually been to the moon and seen it first hand.</i>

There is abundant evidence that we went to the moon, accessible to anybody who wants it. You can go to a museum and touch a moon rock for yourself.

<i>It is the same level of technology to witness the acts of God as it is to go to the moon as well...</i>

How did those guys who wrote the bible witness acts of God, then? I'm sure their technology wasn't equal to the technology we had when we went to the moon.

<i>We base our reasoning that we did go to the moon on our faith in the govornment and the TV program that they broadcasted.</i>

Anybody can analyse the moon landing footage to determine if it was faked or not. Besides, that is the least of the evidence. I've personally seen lasers bounced off the mirrors on the moon - that wouldn't be possible if the mirrors hadn't been put there by the Apollo astronauts.

<i>If people get together among the scientific community to try to reach god there methods are denied as unscientific before they even actually fail because of the seperation in church and state.</i>

I'm really hanging out for you to explain the link between separation of church and state and the denial of God's existence. I assume you'll do that in your next post.

<i>If they actually did contact god and could prove it which would mean all people actually got to contact god then this would not be allowed to be taught in schools because of the seperation of church and state.</i>

I think scientific proof of God's existence, were it ever to come to light, would be allowed into the science curriculum. Your constitution promotes freedom of religion, not censorship of science.

Originally posted by Raithere
I would also point out that the Astronauts brought back with them pieces of the moon, chunks of rock that are definitely not from Earth. These the 'average' man can see for himself if he is dubious. ~Raithere

Some questions,

Have you seen these peices of rock?
Have you tested them for yourself, and are completely satisfied that they are from the moon?
Do you have evidence, apart from TV, that the astronauts went to the moon?

Love

Jan Ardren.

Would it seem less credible if the astronauts had said they landed on the moon but nobody could even see the moon or knew if it existed at all? We know man has been in space- at times you can even see Mia spacestation without the need of binoculars and such. We know man has been in space- you can witness with your own eyes the launches of craft into space etc..

We know there is a moon- they knew there was a moon thousands of years ago.

You say you spoke to/heard from god- There's nothing to say there is a god so how do you know what you're hearing/talking to? Even if the 'voice' said so still wouldn't make it fact.

The rest is sole reliance on an old book written by people without science. Relying on the word of someone you don't know who lived 2000+ years ago is not evidence of fact.

The moon is there- fact. Is god there- maybe, maybe not.

Sorry it is probably hard to understand what everyone is talking about now.

Originally posted by Cybermorphic
I have seen a Moon rock in a museum with my own two eyes and do not myself doubt its authinticity. Point made though, the Moon rock is made of the same stuff the earth is made of because the Moon is actually a piece of the earth which was broken off by something that fell from space and nocked a piece of it off... So the Moon rock really is not much different than earth, you are wrong about that.

Of course its all made of the same stuff, but the rock formations on the Earth and on the moon are very different, mainly in that the rocks on the moon are missing certain metals that are thought to have evaporated while the satellite was forming.


Originally posted by Cybermorphic
Also it is not uncommon for govornments to fool people. In ancient greece or maybe rome the temples of the Gods would be rigged with all sorts of magick tricks.

It is also not uncommon for religions to fool people into gaining loyalty, like in your example. Religion is a way man keeps men of lower intelligence under control. Has been for thousands of years, that is why governments have used religion as a tool to mold the public, and that is why America's fore fathers decided on a strict seperation of church and state, so thier lives would not be controlled by the Church.

Originally posted by Cybermorphic
Convincing your people that you are the strongest nation on earth would be a very effective way of creating loyalty. The Moon landing would be a good way to do that, propaganda is the norm but its not the rule.
Anywhoo.. There are plenty of reasons to believe in God.
Because someone else tells you something is true is actually a good reason to base something on logicly, it is part of inductive logic.

http://www.thursdaysclassroom.com/15mar01/proofpositive.html

that is something I pulled up while searching the net.

Those are five more reasons why one should believe in mankind on the moon than being ruled by a supernatural force.
Why do you believe in god over the moon?

ZERO MASS

-Cibermorphic

"For the word of the cross seems foolish to those who are on the way to distruction; but to those of us who are on the way to salvation it is the power of God" 1 Corinthians 1:18

Cybermorphic-

I have to smile because I know those that would wish to debate have arguments that rest on inductive reasoning just like all the other schools of thought, so it will be silly to watch them fight with their club of 'undeniable truth' be the truth not knowing or knowing that I am wrong... Point for the ignorant: Inductive Reasoning is when your logic supports your case but does not prove your case, which is what even logic itself relys on.

You had to start your post by trying to establish your intellectual "superiority." thus all your future posts will ring of truth and a greater comprehension of the topic can only come from a guy that has to make a "point for the ignorant"

Just messing with you, dont get defensive, just dont be so high and mighty next time, people dont like a know it all.

Originally posted by SnakeLord
[quote]Would it seem less credible if the astronauts had said they landed on the moon but nobody could even see the moon or knew if it existed at all?
No, it is the same.
There's nothing to say there is a god so how do you know what you're hearing/talking to? Even if the 'voice' said so still wouldn't make it fact.
Only the people involved know, the men that said they went on the moon know for sure if they did or didn't, we only believe, if it is credible to us, it is the same with God.
The rest is sole reliance on an old book written by people without science.
It is reliance on “understand” that old book. Science means knowledge, knowledge of how things work. The science you are reffering is modern science, so to say they were without science is non-sense.
Relying on the word of someone you don't know who lived 2000+ years ago is not evidence of fact.
There are scriptures written 5000+ years ago, which says the sun is approximately 92,000,000 miles away from the earth, should I not believe that?
The moon is there- fact. Is god there- maybe, maybe not.
There are things we cannot see with our eyes, but they are there. To see these things, we have to rely on our intelligence, either by making instruments with powerful lens, or by knowledge from the relevant authority.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Cybermorphic
If God is good why would he create evil?
Think about the logic question again... When you are a little baby the littlest things make you cry... when you get older if your balloon gets away from you it will be the worst thing ever... Then as you grow up even more these things don't bother you anymore and you have bigger problems and also greater gifts. When you get to heaven the troubles of your life will be like a little babys problems and your rewards will be greater than anything in this world.. So is what god does here really evil? The evil of this world is only evil and bad on a human standard.. For god to do something as evil as it is for a human to tell a lie, god would have to do something infinitly evil beyond imagination which he doesn't do. When we die gods logic will make more sense and we will see that his plan is good.
It seems to me like you're trying to convince yourself.
Thats a very self-centric way of looking at it. There is unnecassary evil in this world. Unnecassary for the god you describe anyway, necassary for a logical planet.
Yes you will cry about balloons when you're a child and later on it won't seem so important, but what about the kids that don't have a later on? What about tortured and murdered babies?
I think I know what you're going to say: "God gave man free will so man can do evil, not god"
But that doesn't work because the natural world has some pretty horrible stuff happening in it too.

For example, there is an insect that needs to paralyse an animal before it gives birth. It will paralyse something and lay an egg in it. The paralysed animal remains alive and concious for weeks in a specially made area but it can't move. Eventually the egg hatches and eats the fully awake animal alive.
Couldn't god have left that little detail out?

You better hope there isn't a god because logically he would have to be one screwed up character. If there is a god that made THIS world, all indications suggest "heaven" will be him torturing us forever.
Thats the kind of thing a god that made this world would do.
Build us up for a great place called heaven, only to give us the ultimate let down when we die and have him laugh as we enter his disgusting cruel realm.

What makes people think a god would be good and kind?
I don't know how they come to that conclusion, I think its got more to do with them feeling as though they DESERVE a kind god and a fantastic afterlife but if I've learned anything from my stay on this planet it would be that organisms often don't get what they want or hope they deserve. They usually get far worse than what they deserve and I'm talking about organisms that never could have possibly done anything to deserve anything bad ever to happen to them.
I have no reason to think an 'afterlife' would be different.
Apparently the guy that made heaven is the same guy that made earth so I'll take what I KNOW about 'him' as an indication rather than what people I have no reason to believe have told me.

And when taking that into consideration I can only decide that 'god' is a sick, cruel, sadistic, asshole. The biggest in fact. He would have to have all the evil of the world inside him. He came up with the idea of a baby honey badger being mauled and mangled by a large male and left to die slowly in the desert sun. He came up with that from scratch...
I DON'T WANT to spend eternity with this loose cannon!
I'd have to stop myself from punching his head in every five seconds. I'd want to burn him with my cigarette lighter just to try and get some sort of justice for everything he has done to every living organism in history.

Thankfully there is no god. Phew:)
No god with his 'eye on earth' anyway. There very well could be some master of the universe or something but I can assure you that 'life' comes around by chance on lots of planets around the universe, it is without a doubt inconsequential to the big scheme of things.

Originally posted by Cybermorphic
. The average man is not able to travel to the moon by himself just as he is not able to meet his maker in this life.

see thats where you are WRONG,
I have MET my maker,and guess what,there's TWO of them;)
(man and a woman if you didnt know!)

Originally posted by Dystran Hart
And to say that we can fly through the air with thought alone, is as well formed an argument as saying that there is a God.


And an Atheist sounds just like the primitive man 50000 years ago that discounted the idea that humans can fly to the moon carrying a bunch of heavy steel and oil. Or the people that convicted Galeleo to death for saying the earth is round.

An Atheist is one that never believes in the ideas until they are proofed. That makes the Atheist a pessimist, a hurdle in the way of improvement, a non participant in society building, a person with no vision, ect, ect....

And an Atheist sounds just like the primitive man 50000 years ago that discounted the idea that humans can fly to the moon carrying a bunch of heavy steel and oil. Or the people that convicted Galeleo to death for saying the earth is round.

An Atheist is one that never believes in the ideas until they are proofed. That makes the Atheist a pessimist, a hurdle in the way of improvement, a non participant in society building, a person with no vision, ect, ect....

An athiest perhaps..... I think most people here are more along the lines of agnostic.

If Galileo said to you: "the earth is round" You have several choices:

1) Say: "Yeah man it is, no arguments"
2) Say: "No man it isn't, no arguments"

or

3) Say: "Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. perhaps we should search for proof."

Religious man answers number 1, the real athiest answers 2, and those who have more inside themselves than simple faith answer 3.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Have you seen these peices of rock?
Have you tested them for yourself, and are completely satisfied that they are from the moon?
Do you have evidence, apart from TV, that the astronauts went to the moon?

1. Yes.

2. I have not personally tested them, no. But I have seen the evidence and I am convinced they are extraterrestrial in origin. Now, it is possible that they could have been retrieved from some other planet or captured in space before entering the Earth's atmosphere but those possibilities are much less likely.

The primary evidence I am referring to is the existence of micro-meteor impact craters on the rocks. Such craters cannot happen on Earth because these micro-meteors cannot survive falling through the atmosphere. While they might exist on larger meteors in space that can make it though the atmosphere, the craters would be eliminated when the comet burned it's way to Earth.

3. The moon rocks, for one. There are also many still photographs, telemetry data from the trips, the 'mirror' that was placed on the moon, moon dust, the space ships and other equipment that was used, etc.

Finally, disbelief in the moon landings requires not only that one be able to refute the evidence but pose some plausible alternative explanation to both the evidence and all the Earthbound activity that went into accomplishing the task... I have seen none.

~Raithere

Originally posted by heflores
And an Atheist sounds just like the primitive man 50000 years ago that discounted the idea that humans can fly to the moon carrying a bunch of heavy steel and oil.

Since Atheists only believe in what can be directly observed and prooven and do not rely on unseeable entities and forces to answer their questions, it seems more reasonable that we would have landed on the moon sooner if manking was an Atheistic race.

Originally posted by heflores
Or the people that convicted Galeleo to death for saying the earth is round.

Well, first of all he was not executed, he was placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life.
Second, the reason for his arrest was not for claiming that the Earth was round, it was for publishing the book "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" in 1630, which supported the views of Copernicus that the Sun was the center of the Universe.
Third, and MOST IMPORTANTLY who was it that convicted him???
Atheists? Nooooooo... The Roman Catholic Church under the rule of Pope Urban VIII



Originally posted by heflores
An Atheist is one that never believes in the ideas until they are proofed. That makes the Atheist a pessimist
No, it makes an Atheist a Pragmatist.




Originally posted by heflores
a hurdle in the way of improvement, a non participant in society building, a person with no vision, ect, ect....

That is absurd.
An Atheist is a person that embraces what can be observed and proven (as you said yourself), therefore an Atheist embraces science over faith.
Science provides thge means for understanding the natural world surrounding us.
How it all works and how all the matter and energy interracts with each other.
That is where technological, civil and mechanical engineering advances COME from.

So why am I fed up with an athiest agnostic sosciety? Because the reasoning behind it rests only on the seperation of church and state.

Only? Well it's ONLY the first amendment, and it's ONLY the bulwark of our freedom.

To say there is no evidence of God is just as well formed an argument as to say we have never been to the moon.

Inaccurate analogy. I can point to several evidences that humans have been on the moon - I have seen pictures, I have seen moonrocks, I have seen the debris we left behind, I have heard interviews with the people who were on the moon, etc.

But I have never seen a single evidence for the existence of God.

Originally posted by heflores
An Atheist is one that never believes in the ideas until they are proofed. That makes the Atheist a pessimist, a hurdle in the way of improvement, a non participant in society building, a person with no vision, ect, ect...No, that makes the person in question a skeptic, not necessarily an atheist (although the two are often linked); someone who does not believe any pie-in-the-sky notion that someone comes up with but that actually thinks for themselves, asks questions and requires more proof than their own positive emotional response. Skepticism is not pessimism; it is simply an attitude of truthfulness, it is not biased towards or against.

The skeptic tests his wings before attempting to fly.
The true-believer dives blindly from any available precipice; convinced that he is not plummeting to the rocks below but flying. Sometimes he is right but, unfortunately, he will only find out he's wrong when his head hits the rock.

~Raithere

I think it is important to think about things that aren't known yet. I agree with some of the religious types in that some atheists take it too far in thinking that just because something is not proven there's definately no way it could be.
BUT if you are going to think about these things than you need to accept what is known and simply build on that. Whats wrong with religions is science actually contradicts what they say so we KNOW its a load of garbage.
It would be fine to assume there is a "god" of sorts, I mean it makes sense, but it wouldn't be anything like what people in history have believed.
At this stage in scientific history the most logical conclusion as to what god is is to assume it is a non-concious, non-cognitive, innanimate. The human word for the natural process of universe creation.
I think it is also logical to assume its "motives" or "reason for being" would be incromprehensible to our human brains, a concept no living organism could possibly fathom let alone be expected to notice or "obey".

Originally posted by Raithere
[quote]2. I have not personally tested them, no. But I have seen the evidence
How do you know the so-called evidence was not fabricated, to make you think they came from the moon?
but those possibilities are much less likely.
Why?
While they might exist on larger meteors in space that can make it though the atmosphere, the craters would be eliminated when the comet burned it's way to Earth.
As you say, they may have been created before their entry into earths atmosphere. Or they could be made to look that way, cosmeticaly. Those cats in Hollywood are darned clever.
3. The moon rocks, for one. There are also many still photographs, telemetry data from the trips, the 'mirror' that was placed on the moon, moon dust, the space ships and other equipment that was used, etc.
Do you know what moon rocks look like? Have you been to the moon? As far as anybody knows, it could be an elaborate hoax. Do you have any proof that they landed on the moon, other than TV?
Finally, disbelief in the moon landings requires not only that one be able to refute the evidence but pose some plausible alternative explanation to both the evidence and all the Earthbound activity that went into accomplishing the task... I have seen none.
There are lots of refutations regarding moon landing, i am not going to go into them, but they are there. And apart from that, i just don't believe they went to the moon, i don't believe they have the travelling capability today, never mind thirty-odd years ago, and to be honest, i don't care, it is of no real consequence.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Raithere
The skeptic tests his wings before attempting to fly.
The true-believer dives blindly from any available precipice; convinced that he is not plummeting to the rocks below but flying. Sometimes he is right but, unfortunately, he will only find out he's wrong when his head hits the rock.

~Raithere

He couldn't be testing his wings....Because to test his wings, he must strongly believe that he can fly to begin with. An Atheist is one that throws away his wings all together because flying to him is as rediculous as being told the earth is round or there is a single creator and combiner of all forces that is responsible for the universal creation and order. An Athest is not a skeptic....he/shse is an unbeliever.....Believers should all be skeptic.....otherwise, we would have had a single file belief and one church for all under a one pope....

Jan:

<i>There are scriptures written 5000+ years ago, which says the sun is approximately 92,000,000 miles away from the earth</i>

Really? Interesting. Which scriptures? Can you quote the relevant passages, please?

<i>How do you know the so-called evidence was not fabricated, to make you think [the moon rocks] came from the moon?</i>

This is a common mistake that conspiracy theorists make. It is, of course, true that any single piece of evidence for a scientific claim could probably be faked if somebody tried hard enough. But you can't just look at single pieces of evidence in isolation. You need to look at the totality of the evidence. Then you ask yourself: is it all faked, or is it probably real?

In the case of the moon landings, there is simply too much evidence that the landings actually happened. The probability of a conspiracy is miniscule, and nobody has yet produced a single piece of convincing positive evidence that such a conspiracy exists. Conspiracy theories are based on a very shaky set of suppositions and (usually) fears, rather than anything concrete.

<i>Do you know what moon rocks look like?</i>

We know what they <b>should</b> look like, based on all kinds of science. And the samples which "they" claim are moon rocks satisfy all the tests. Of course, all science could be a huge conspiracy. Which do you think is the more likely explanation?

<i>There are lots of refutations regarding moon landing, i am not going to go into them, but they are there.</i>

And they've all been convincingly debunked.

<i>And apart from that, i just don't believe they went to the moon, i don't believe they have the travelling capability today, never mind thirty-odd years ago, and to be honest, i don't care, it is of no real consequence.</i>

It's just a matter of faith with you, isn't it? Your belief is actually based on nothing. Or, more likely, you've read Nexus or a few conspiracy sites on the internet and haven't bothered to actually check whether the questions raised there have been addressed by the people who actually did the work to get us to the moon.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
How do you know the so-called evidence was not fabricated, to make you think they came from the moon?Ockham's razor. There is an abundance of evidence that supporting the fact that we landed on the Moon. There is no evidence what-so-ever to support the conspiracy theory that we did not. In order to arrive at the conclusion that the Moon landings were fake one must not only be able to demonstrate how the evidence could be falsified (which I'm doubtful it can be) but invent a conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people and costing millions (billions?) of dollars that was entirely successful (that is; not a single piece of information was leaked) over a period of 30 years. Frankly, travelling to the Moon was easier than that would have been.

Further, I have viewed and debated the so called 'evidence' the conspiracists bring to the table and it is based entirely in ignorance.

Additionally, after working for three multinational corporations and many large companies, and getting to view their inner functioning (I use the term loosely) of their bureaucracies (which are operating out in the open with publicly declared goals). I am quite convinced that it is quite impossible for any large group of humans to carry out a successful secret conspiracy for any length of time. No, a successful secret conspiracy can involve only a handful of people at most.

Why?Because we barely managed to scrape together the technology that got us to the Moon. These other possibilities are much more difficult and quite beyond our capabilities at that time.

As you say, they may have been created before their entry into earths atmosphere.No. As I said, entry into Earth's atmosphere would have eliminated the micro-meteor craters.

Or they could be made to look that way, cosmeticaly. Those cats in Hollywood are darned clever.No, the evidence is not simply cosmetic. It is physical. The only way to fake it would be to actually simulate the impact artificially. I don't believe we had the technology to do that at the time.

Do you know what moon rocks look like? Have you been to the moon? As far as anybody knows, it could be an elaborate hoax. Do you have any proof that they landed on the moon, other than TV?But if someone wrote about it 5000 years ago you'd believe it? :bugeye: Do you realize what I kick I'm getting out of reading this?

There are lots of refutations regarding moon landing, i am not going to go into them, but they are there.They are all crap. I can discount the main ones in just a few minutes:

Intersecting shadows (supposedly indicative of multiple light sources) - Any first year Art student can explain this one. It's called linear perspective. You might be familiar with the concept of the vanishing point for instance (the fact that parallel lines seem to converge in the distance, as with railroad tracks). One needs also to take into account the varied terrain on the length and apparent direction of the shadows which is again simply a matter of perspective (view shadows on a staircase for example, note how even a single shadow bends and twists, move and watch how the shadows change with your perspective).

No stars in the photos - This any photography buff could answer. First I will point out that all moonwalks took place in the daytime. A bright object in the foreground (such as ground reflected daylight) will obscure relatively dim objects in the background (like stars). If you don't believe me just try to see the stars through a window with all the lights turned on in the room. Further, to photograph stars at all one needs to have high speed film and use relatively long exposure times which are not what you use for taking still shots of normal lighting situations. As to the reason why they did not bring the appropriate equipment with them; there was simply no reason to. The observatories on Earth take better pictures of the stars than anything we could have fit on the lander.

Filled shadows - The theory is that because there is no atmosphere the shadows in the pictures should all be perfectly black. This however is simply incorrect. Most of the light that we see on Earth is being bounced off of objects, which is why we can see these objects. Light reflects off of the ground on the moon just like it does off of earth. In fact, the Moon's albedo is quite high which is why it's so bright in our sky. The backfill of shadows is simply due to light reflecting off of the lunar surface.

Radiation - This is deliberately misleading. While the Van Allen Belts do indeed contain lethal doses of radiation the remedy is rather simple. Most of the radiation can be blocked with a rather thin sheet of aluminum; that which cannot consists primarily of gamma rays (from which the conspiracists get their unqualified 6' of lead figure). But of course this is only a small portion of the radiation, the solution was to simply minimize the duration of exposure by plotting a trajectory through the belts that took a minimal amount of time, thereby keeping the total exposure to a relatively safe level.

No blast crater and no dust on the feet of the lander - The lander's rockets blew away all of the light dust (this is clearly visible in the videos) and the rockets were simply not powerful enough to blast a crater into the harder surface below. But you can see some of the burn marks in some of the pictures. As to the dust; well, it was blown away. As there is no atmosphere dust will not billow and cloud like it does on Earth. Each particle will act like a thrown rock and simply move in a gravity bound parabola, it will not swirl around to come back and land on the feet of the lander.

And apart from that, i just don't believe they went to the moon, i don't believe they have the travelling capability today, never mind thirty-odd years ago, and to be honest, i don't care, it is of no real consequence.You really do live in your own little isolated world don't you? You believe these things based upon what; your intuition?

Well, I tell you what, when time comes for our race to get off this miniscule speck of nothing and explore the vast wonder of the Universe, we'll leave you and your ilk here so you can keep dreaming that you're the most important things in the Universe, that God created more stars in the sky than there are grains of sand in all the world just so that you could play connect the dots at night.

~Raithere