NASA’s Image of the Day Gallery has a concept of what the next lunar rover will look like:
Here’s the description from NASA:
NASA’s Next Generation Moon Rover
In the year 2020, NASA will be back on the moon. This time NASA will explore thousands of miles of the moon’s surface with individual missions lasting six months or longer. Just as we did during the Apollo program, NASA will be developing new concepts and technologies that also will benefit life on Earth.
One concept that is in NASA’s current plans is a Lunar Electric Rover. This small pressurized rover is about the size of a pickup truck (with 12 wheels) and can house two astronauts for up to 14 days with sleeping and sanitary facilities. It is designed to require little or no maintenance, be able to travel thousands of miles climbing over rocks and up 40 degree slopes during its ten-year life exploring the harsh surface of the moon. The rover frame was developed in conjunction with an off-road race truck team and was field tested in the desert Southwest by driving on rough lava.
Grace and Peace
GeoChristian 
One of the web hosts here once cited “point mutations” as a source of his ongoing uncertainty about organic evolution. Bear with me. The following quotes and the page numbers cited are from the book entitled: “Not by chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution”, by Dr. Lee Spetner. The final comments are mine.
“Any theory meant to explain how all plants and animals evolved from a single cell has to explain how all the information got into the genome.”P70
“All point mutations studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.” P.138
“of all the mutations studied since genetics became a science, not a single one has been found that adds a little information.: P.179
“…among all the mutations that have been studied, there aren’t any known, clear, examples of a mutation that has added information.” P.131
… in all the reading I’ve done in the life sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information. The Neodarwinian theory says not only that such mutations must occur, they must also be probable enough for a long sequence of them to lead to macroevolution.” But “just like a fortune cannot be made by losing money, evolution can’t build up information by losing it.” P. 132
“There is no evidence that genetic information can build up through a series of small steps of microevolution. Mutations needed for these small steps have never been observed. By far, most mutations have been harmful to the organism.” P.159.
“Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations that the Neodarwinian theory demands. There may well not be any. The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is devastating evidence against the theory.
——–
This is but a tiny sample in a book full of scientific information and insights, but enough to see that the author is at bedrock. For if neo-Darwinism (natural selection acting on genetic mutations) is to explain how man evolved, then it must explain growing information and complexity. Yet not a single mutation ever studied contributes new information to the genome of any organism. Common sense is vindicated. You cannot create intelligent information by damaging intelligent information. Thousands of mutations have now been studied and the pattern is clear.
This includes studies of bacterial and viral resistance to drugs, and insect resistance to pesticides. In a population of billions of pathogens or insects, if one individual is resistant, it quickly takes over the population, giving the illusion of “evolving” resistance. In fact the resistant individual typically has a mutation that interferes with the bonding site or process used by the anti-biotic or pesticidal agent. Although this enhances the survival chances of the pathogen or the insect, it has actually resulted from a degradation or loss of genetic information.
Even genetic mutations that lead to increased crop yields or the rate at which cow’s produce milk, or all found to result from loss of genetic information or functioning. For example, a mutation in a regulatory gene can degrade the repressor protein encoded by the gene, causing increased protein production. So while the changes may seem beneficial, they nevertheless lose genetic information as they reduce the specificity of the regulatory protein. As Dr. Spetner makes clear, “Although there are circumstances where point mutations are good for the organism, all known point mutations lose information.” Truly, ‘Only God can make a tree.’
So now sits the beleaguered evolutionist, facing the undecipherable code of DNA, without any means of creating an infinitesimal fraction of it. DNA – the most immaculate expression of intelligence known to man. Its encoded program designs you right down to the number of hairs on your head. It builds what is probably the most complex object in the universe – the human brain – and places a copy of itself in every one of the trillions of cells of your body. Each time a cell divides, it proof-reads the newly copied information to reduce mistakes to one in ten billion. Unfathomable. This coded information is immediately present upon conception and mankind and all his computers cannot even decipher it let alone duplicate it. And the evolutionist can’t even create a bit of new genetic information when he is given DNA to start with!
And now an alternative is available. We now know that organisms are genetically programmed to adapt to new environments. The phenomenon is being called “phenotypic elasticity.” Adaptive changes apparently occur by genetic mechanisms reacting to cues from the physical environment. This ability has now been observed and documented in many animal species, including Darwin’s finches. But what Darwin didn’t know was that these adaptive changes can take over a population in a matter of a few generations, and need not wait upon millions of years. And why should it surprise us that adaptivity is built into DNA, given what else it is able to do?
The implications are far-reaching. Clearly, there never was an upward vector of evolution. The vector, if any, is lateral or even downward – as animals adapt to new environments primarily by means of built-in abilities, not through accidental but favorable mutations over hundreds of millions of years. New strains develop but never as the result of new genetic information. The potential was already there, waiting for the right external cues or pressures to express itself. Design – not accident.
Evolution was never a discovery of science. It was from the beginning an idea imposed forcibly upon the evidence. The fossils were never there even when we stacked the deck, and stack it we did. The whole geologic column portrayed in our text books was created with strong reference to index fossils and under the assumption of an upward vector of evolution. But experimental science now makes it clear that, like the sun in the sky gradually burning up its original allotment of fuel, the living world is still working with his original compliment of DNA.
The noted evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, when asked if he knew of a single instance of a genetic mutation resulting in new information, reacted with great surprise and could not answer. Now if anyone knew of such a mutation he certainly would. But like all evolutionists he is a theoretician. It never dawned on him that science might progress to the point of providing experimental proofs against his theory. He also fancies himself the nation’s leading atheist, who uses his “science” to spread his religion – his fictional creation story for atheists. This is spiritual warfare, not science.
I’ll part with the following quote, which I believe. Note the credentials of the speaker.
“Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs.” Grasse, Pierre-P. [editor of the 28-volume “Traite de Zoologie”, former Chair of Evolution, Sorbonne University and ex-president of the French Academie des Sciences], “Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation”, Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.8.
LikeLike
Hi all,
Personally I think it should be said that ya’ll spend way too much time debating an issue that is clearly very debatable! Maybe you should engage the lost in the time you spend on these non essentials!
Reach the Lost with your ingenuity and knowledge and stop trying to convert the converted to your own dogma’s!
Dont bother responding as I will never return to this site!!!
JJ Uys
LikeLike
REGUARDLESS OF WHAT YOU MIGHT BELIEVE ON HOW OLD THE EARTH IS OR IS’NT, I THINK THE POINT IS THAT GOD AND THE DEVIL DOES EXSIST, SO WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US? THINK ABOUT IT! IF MOST OF US ARE NOT CHOSEN TO WHITNESS ANYTHING HOLY,I DO HOPE YOU DO ACTUALLY WHITNESS EVIL BY SEEING REAL DEMONS ARE THE ACTUAL DEVIL! AND IF YOUS ARE EVEN BLESSD ENOUGH TOO,HOW CAN YOUS NOT BELIEVE THAT THEIR IS A GOD AND HE IS NOT REAL? I’VE HEARD THAT ONE OF THE DEVILS CREATEST TRICKS IS TO CONVINCE THE WORLD HE DOES NOT EXSIST. I THINK THATS WHAT THE REAL POINT IS!
LikeLike
What do any of these postings have to do with NASA’s Next Generation Moon Rover? The fact that these postings are here doesn’t speak well to those who are trying to understand the young earth mindset.
LikeLike
Hi, People in this world as i read these sites i realized alot of people know the Bible very well what Jesus did or what Paul said and yet alot of this world believs in evolution these two things totally contradict each other I quote the Bible. Jesus said you can not serve two messrs at the same time and this is exaclty what the world is doing. They belive in Jesus and they belive in evolution this cant happen.
LikeLike
Tim, I suspect the term “moon rover” has gotten this post to show up in searches of some kook areas of the Internet – conspiracy theories and the like. The all-caps, horrible spelling, drive-by comments, and total lack of grammar are pretty typical of those corners of the Internet.
LikeLike
I have to remind myself that some will never hear the voice of Jesus and the love He shows when I am afraid of the truth.
I would have expected no less from this world, “extreme measures” to shut up the truth. Make no mistake “Whom”, is in charge on earth for the time being. When God’s ready He’ll change that with a “Word”!
Our battle here “begins” in the mind, the sad part is it’s the “heart” I should be listening to.
OP’er, You missed the point!
I truly fear for those who have been told sooo many times.
LikeLike
God did not create the world in 6 literal 24 hour days as AiG states. He created it in 6 literal 12 hour days. John11:9 Jesus states that there are 12 hours in a day. In genesis God separated the light from the darkness and called the LIGHT Day. The day has a morning (sunrise) and an evening (sunset). After the sunset there is darkness (night) for 12 hours (watches of the night). God did all his creation during the light (DAY). And there was evening and there was morning THE FIRST DAY. A day has been 12 hours since the beginning when God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit (Trinity)started this world for man to go forth and multiply and fill the earth so they can have a relationship with Him
I emailed AiG about this 12 day and they never responded….why?
LikeLike
You know what? In the end, NONE of this will even matter. The only thing that will matter is that Jesus is LORD and you had better have accepted that FACT. How old the Earth is, when time it’s self actually started? Really? What a silly waste of time to argue over those points because who’s right or who’s wrong is so irrelevant to the grand scheme of things.
LikeLike