FourPart;1505595 wrote: I remember you spouting that it had been proven that there had never been any water on Mars - then water was discovered on Mars.
I don't recall saying that.
Now you are similarly spouting (or, more to the point, pasting someone else's spoutings) that microbes have not been found on Mars. Given the tiny amount of material we have to actually run tests on under laboratory conditions even this might not seem surprising, but what little we have has been tested, and it seems that there COULD, indeed, be traces of microbial life.
So far microbes have not been found on Mars, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were. Water has been found on Mercury. It probably came from Earth during the Flood. Here are some facts you may find interesting:
The Origin of Comets
SUMMARY: Past explanations for how comets began have serious problems. After a review of some facts concerning comets, a new explanation for comets will be proposed and tested. During the first weeks of the flood, the fountains of the great deep launched water, rocks, and muddy droplets that later gravitationally merged around the larger rocks. The fountains expelled an “ocean†of high-pressure, supercritical water that jetted up through the atmosphere and into the vacuum of space. Today, these merged bodies match comets in size, number, density, composition, spin, texture, strength, chemistry (organic and inorganic), and orbital characteristics. After a comparison of theories with evidence, problems with the earlier explanations will become obvious.
Comets may be the most dynamic, spectacular, variable, and mysterious bodies in the solar system. They even contain complex organic molecules—including trace amounts of the amino acid glycine, a building block of life on earth.1 Early scientists discovered other types of organic matter in comets “similar to organic matter of unquestioned biological origin on Earth,†and concluded that they came from “decomposed organic bodies.â€2
While simple organic compounds are not always a product of life, complex organic compounds almost certainly are. Furthermore different comets are expelling multiple organic compounds.3 Today, a popular belief is that comets brought life to Earth. Instead, comets have traces of life from Earth.4
In 1998, billions of tons of water-ice mixed with the soil were found in deep craters near the Moon’s poles. As one writer visualized it,
Comets raining from the sky left pockets of frozen water at the north and south poles of the moon, billions of tons more than previously believed, Los Alamos National Laboratory researchers have found.7
Later, thin traces of water were found at all lunar latitudes by three different spacecraft.8 Comets are a likely source, but this raises perplexing questions. Ice should evaporate from the Moon faster than comets currently deposit it, so why does so much ice remain?9 Also, recently deposited ice has been discovered in permanently shadowed craters on Mercury,10 the closest planet to the Sun. Ice that near the Sun is even more difficult to explain.
Planet Mercury has an average surface temperature of 350°F ! However, layers of water ice, up to a few hundred meters thick, are permanently shielded from sunlight in craters near Mercury’s poles.10 How strange. How did that water get there—and from where?
That ice could not have been on Mercury for millions of years. Meteoritic impacts would have scattered the ice into the Sun’s fiery glow or buried the ice with debris from those impacts. Nor could water have migrated into those craters from inside or on Mercury without becoming hot water vapor (or dissociated H, O, and OH) that would quickly escape into space.
Where did the water come from? Comets and asteroids, which contain vast amounts of water, are not hitting Mercury frequently today, but they may have rapidly bombarded Mercury in the relatively recent past. Obviously, Mercury’s water came from some place with considerable water. Could it have been Earth, “the water planet�
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Comets
Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Rosetta Mission
On 12 November 2014, the European Space Agency’s Rosetta spacecraft landed instruments on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko—a comet that is 72%–74% empty space. This was the first successful landing on a comet. Among the many discoveries were sixteen organic compounds.
Some will say that these organic compounds were precursors to life on Earth. Neglected is the more likely alternative: these compounds were fragments of organisms living on Earth that were destroyed in some cataclysm. If you saw a large pile of bricks mixed with steel, tubes, glass, wire, and insulation, would you conclude that a building was evolving or that a building had been destroyed?
Finding so many complex organic compounds on such a small body in space is unprecedented. On rare occasions an organic compound (a molecule containing carbon atoms in rings or long chains with such elements as hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen attached) might be found near a distant star. Comet 67P contained sixteen complex organic compounds! They, and especially the fifty samples of the amino acid (glycine) that were found, obviously came from life.
Molecular Oxygen (O2). Comet 67P’s atmosphere also contained molecular oxygen (O2)—two oxygen atoms linked together. Scientists were stunned! O2 should not have been there, because O2 should not be in space52 and it readily breaks apart and reacts with other chemicals to form compounds such as water, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide. When it reacts with itself, it forms ozone (O3). No ozone was on 67P.
Molecular oxygen is what we breathe on Earth and is relatively rare except on earth. Earth’s surface waters are saturated with dissolved molecular oxygen.
The amount of O2 in 67P’s atmosphere was strongly correlated with the amount of water vapor in the comet’s atmosphere; the more water vapor that escaped from inside the comet as it warmed during the comet’s daytime and as it approached the Sun, the more O2 entered 67P’s atmosphere. Therefore, molecular oxygen was already dissolved in the water ice when the comet formed.
O2 was incorporated into the nucleus during the comet’s formation, ... Current Solar System formation models do not predict conditions that would allow this to occur.53
This explains why O2 did not have a chance to combine with hydrogen, carbon, or 67P’s complex organic compounds to form water, carbon dioxide, or carbon monoxide. It also tells us that the ice particles had to merge gently when the comet formed.
Comet 67P must have been put together gently, [Andre] Bieler says; otherwise the ice-coated grains that make up its bulk would have been heated and the oxygen removed.54
If comets formed billions of years ago, how could that O2 remain locked up in ice for all that time—through the formation of the solar system and comets, after innumerable impacts (from rocks to photons), and after millions of passes by the Sun? Kathrin Altwegg of the University of Bern, who coauthored this surprising report in the journal Nature admitted, “We never thought that oxygen could ‘survive’ for billions of years.†55 [Correct. Molecular oxygen could not survive for billions of years in outer space. W.B.]
If comets brought the chemicals for life to Earth, why didn’t the O2 gobble up those chemicals long before they reached Earth? We all know what O2 does to dead bodies.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Comet Composition
On 12 November 2014, the European Space Agency’s Rosetta spacecraft landed instruments on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko—a comet that is 72%–74% empty space. This was the first successful landing on a comet. Among the many discoveries were sixteen organic compounds.
Some will say that these organic compounds were precursors to life on Earth. Neglected is the more likely alternative: these compounds were fragments of organisms living on Earth that were destroyed in some cataclysm. If you saw a large pile of bricks mixed with steel, tubes, glass, wire, and insulation, would you conclude that a building was evolving or that a building had been destroyed?
Finding so many complex organic compounds on such a small body in space is unprecedented. On rare occasions an organic compound (a molecule containing carbon atoms in rings or long chains with such elements as hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen attached) might be found near a distant star. Comet 67P contained sixteen complex organic compounds! They, and especially the fifty samples of the amino acid (glycine) that were found, obviously came from life.
Molecular Oxygen (O2). Comet 67P’s atmosphere also contained molecular oxygen (O2)—two oxygen atoms linked together. Scientists were stunned! O2 should not have been there, because O2 should not be in space52 and it readily breaks apart and reacts with other chemicals to form compounds such as water, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide. When it reacts with itself, it forms ozone (O3). No ozone was on 67P.
Molecular oxygen is what we breathe on Earth and is relatively rare except on earth. Earth’s surface waters are saturated with dissolved molecular oxygen.
The amount of O2 in 67P’s atmosphere was strongly correlated with the amount of water vapor in the comet’s atmosphere; the more water vapor that escaped from inside the comet as it warmed during the comet’s daytime and as it approached the Sun, the more O2 entered 67P’s atmosphere. Therefore, molecular oxygen was already dissolved in the water ice when the comet formed.
O2 was incorporated into the nucleus during the comet’s formation, ... Current Solar System formation models do not predict conditions that would allow this to occur.53
This explains why O2 did not have a chance to combine with hydrogen, carbon, or 67P’s complex organic compounds to form water, carbon dioxide, or carbon monoxide. It also tells us that the ice particles had to merge gently when the comet formed.
Comet 67P must have been put together gently, [Andre] Bieler says; otherwise the ice-coated grains that make up its bulk would have been heated and the oxygen removed.54
If comets formed billions of years ago, how could that O2 remain locked up in ice for all that time—through the formation of the solar system and comets, after innumerable impacts (from rocks to photons), and after millions of passes by the Sun? Kathrin Altwegg of the University of Bern, who coauthored this surprising report in the journal Nature admitted, “We never thought that oxygen could ‘survive’ for billions of years.†55 [Correct. Molecular oxygen could not survive for billions of years in outer space. W.B.]
If comets brought the chemicals for life to Earth, why didn’t the O2 gobble up those chemicals long before they reached Earth? We all know what O2 does to dead bodies.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Comet Composition
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
I do recall that.
Science Disproves Evolution
Under the leadership of the bona fide scientific community they laugh at the thought of creationism. It is all wishful thinking to try to achieve security where there is none.
-
xfrodobagginsx
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu, Are you a Creation Scientist? Do you believe in Intelligent Design? I am a little confused here because on one hand, you seem to be a Creationist and on the other hand, you seem to reject Intelligent Design. Your arguments are genius. You are truly an intelligent man. Wow! Are a born again Christian? I am going to be looking through some more of your arguments. I do Christian Apologetic s and spread the Gospel. I started the thread "How to get to heaven when you die".
Science Disproves Evolution
xfrodobagginsx;1505629 wrote: Pahu, Are you a Creation Scientist?
No, I am just a creationist. I get the science from scientists.
Do you believe in Intelligent Design? I am a little confused here because on one hand, you seem to be a Creationist and on the other hand, you seem to reject Intelligent Design.
I believe the facts of science reveal an Intelligent Designer.
Your arguments are genius. You are truly an intelligent man. Wow! Are a born again Christian?
Thanks for the compliment. It is refreshing when most responses are negative. But I am not a genius. The information I share is from scientists. Yes, I am a Christian.
I am going to be looking through some more of your arguments. I do Christian Apologetic s and spread the Gospel. I started the thread "How to get to heaven when you die".
It looks like you are on the right track. Keep up the good work and welcome to reality as a fellow worker in Christ.
No, I am just a creationist. I get the science from scientists.
Do you believe in Intelligent Design? I am a little confused here because on one hand, you seem to be a Creationist and on the other hand, you seem to reject Intelligent Design.
I believe the facts of science reveal an Intelligent Designer.
Your arguments are genius. You are truly an intelligent man. Wow! Are a born again Christian?
Thanks for the compliment. It is refreshing when most responses are negative. But I am not a genius. The information I share is from scientists. Yes, I am a Christian.
I am going to be looking through some more of your arguments. I do Christian Apologetic s and spread the Gospel. I started the thread "How to get to heaven when you die".
It looks like you are on the right track. Keep up the good work and welcome to reality as a fellow worker in Christ.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1505661 wrote: No, I am just a creationist. I get the science from scientists.
I believe the facts of science reveal an Intelligent Designer.
Thanks for the compliment. It is refreshing when most responses are negative. But I am not a genius. The information I share is from scientists. Yes, I am a Christian.
I do wish that you would share some of the "Science" with us.
So far, almost every thing you've shared over the years has simply been quotes of other peoples' opinions.
Still waiting for the science.
I believe the facts of science reveal an Intelligent Designer.
Thanks for the compliment. It is refreshing when most responses are negative. But I am not a genius. The information I share is from scientists. Yes, I am a Christian.
I do wish that you would share some of the "Science" with us.
So far, almost every thing you've shared over the years has simply been quotes of other peoples' opinions.
Still waiting for the science.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
xfrodobagginsx
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1505661 wrote: No, I am just a creationist. I get the science from scientists.
I believe the facts of science reveal an Intelligent Designer.
Thanks for the compliment. It is refreshing when most responses are negative. But I am not a genius. The information I share is from scientists. Yes, I am a Christian.
It looks like you are on the right track. Keep up the good work and welcome to reality as a fellow worker in Christ.
Feel free to chime in my thread "How to get to heaven when you die" on this same forum page. God bless you my friend. Keep up the good work! God IS using you. The world will try to discourage you, but we know that our affirmation is in Christ and His will, not the world. I am going to be reading your information and I have also shared it with a prominent Christian radio apologist because your material is really solid. What is your main source for your material? Is it creationscience.com?
I believe the facts of science reveal an Intelligent Designer.
Thanks for the compliment. It is refreshing when most responses are negative. But I am not a genius. The information I share is from scientists. Yes, I am a Christian.
It looks like you are on the right track. Keep up the good work and welcome to reality as a fellow worker in Christ.
Feel free to chime in my thread "How to get to heaven when you die" on this same forum page. God bless you my friend. Keep up the good work! God IS using you. The world will try to discourage you, but we know that our affirmation is in Christ and His will, not the world. I am going to be reading your information and I have also shared it with a prominent Christian radio apologist because your material is really solid. What is your main source for your material? Is it creationscience.com?
-
xfrodobagginsx
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1505662 wrote: I do wish that you would share some of the "Science" with us.
So far, almost every thing you've shared over the years has simply been quotes of other peoples' opinions.
Still waiting for the science.
This man has shared overwhelming Scientific evidence with all of you. It's not his fault if you choose to remain in the dark. God BLESS him. You are blessed that God has called such a man to reveal the truth to you. But if you reject it, you will have to answer to God for it. His conscience is clear.
So far, almost every thing you've shared over the years has simply been quotes of other peoples' opinions.
Still waiting for the science.
This man has shared overwhelming Scientific evidence with all of you. It's not his fault if you choose to remain in the dark. God BLESS him. You are blessed that God has called such a man to reveal the truth to you. But if you reject it, you will have to answer to God for it. His conscience is clear.
Science Disproves Evolution
xfrodobagginsx;1505665 wrote: Feel free to chime in my thread "How to get to heaven when you die" on this same forum page. God bless you my friend. Keep up the good work! God IS using you. The world will try to discourage you, but we know that our affirmation is in Christ and His will, not the world. I am going to be reading your information and I have also shared it with a prominent Christian radio apologist because your material is really solid. What is your main source for your material? Is it creationscience.com?
My main source is, In The Beginning by Walt Brown
Center for Scientific Creation | In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Table of Contents
My main source is, In The Beginning by Walt Brown
Center for Scientific Creation | In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Table of Contents
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
xfrodobagginsx;1505667 wrote: This man has shared overwhelming Scientific evidence with all of you. It's not his fault if you choose to remain in the dark. God BLESS him. You are blessed that God has called such a man to reveal the truth to you. But if you reject it, you will have to answer to God for it. His conscience is clear.
You certainly have a different definition of science than most, I think. And if what he presented has been "overwhelming Scientific evidence," I wonder why none of us has yet to be overwhelmed.
Frankly, you should probably stick to your own version of "the truth."
My conscience is equally clear. And when I stand before God, I am sure that I will have far more pressing concerns that my doubting the claptrap you and Pahu have been throwing at us.
You certainly have a different definition of science than most, I think. And if what he presented has been "overwhelming Scientific evidence," I wonder why none of us has yet to be overwhelmed.
Frankly, you should probably stick to your own version of "the truth."
My conscience is equally clear. And when I stand before God, I am sure that I will have far more pressing concerns that my doubting the claptrap you and Pahu have been throwing at us.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Lars It is the wishful thinking of the past in trying to convince themselves of a security that does not exist.
Science Disproves Evolution
His ONLY source is Dolt Brown - a debunked wannabe 'scientist' who deliberately takes quotes out of context & spins them to mean the exact opposite of what was intended. He uses an infamous list of names & another list of publications, but not once does he ever come up with any connection between them. He uses a PHd in Engineering to make believe that he is some sort of authority in Quantum Theory. He seems to believe that Astronomy & Evolution are one & the same thing (although I'm not confused he's not getting confused with Astrology & Astronomy). He passes off evidence free suppositions as 'facts' & bases the remainder of his arguments on these 'facts'. Whenever there is evidence that goes against his fantasies he blindly dismisses them as fake, or dismisses them altogether. Very rarely does he ever come up with any other cross referencing source for his information, and when he does it's merely more links from Dolt Brown to some of his own Creationist sites. Despite being challenged on multiple occasions to explain himself & to give cogniscent arguments of his own he has always failed by only continuing to paste, paste & paste again. When caught out he denies it & tries to change the subject by more pasting. If you find it intelligent that he knows how to copy & paste, then he must be a genius, because that's all he can do.
Science Disproves Evolution
Lars I see little people, children" in the library doing exactly the same thing. Due to my eye condition I simply refuse to read these long post of his. I just skim a few lines and roll my eyes. Unbelievable.
-
xfrodobagginsx
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1505677 wrote: You certainly have a different definition of science than most, I think. And if what he presented has been "overwhelming Scientific evidence," I wonder why none of us has yet to be overwhelmed.
Frankly, you should probably stick to your own version of "the truth."
My conscience is equally clear. And when I stand before God, I am sure that I will have far more pressing concerns that my doubting the claptrap you and Pahu have been throwing at us.
Did you know that Christians invented the Scientific Method AND started the first Schools, Colleges and Universities? Well, maybe Pahu isn't posting this stuff for you, did you ever think of that? Maybe he is posting it for the others who stop by and read this thread. He is making a difference for the Lord whether you reject it or not.
Frankly, you should probably stick to your own version of "the truth."
My conscience is equally clear. And when I stand before God, I am sure that I will have far more pressing concerns that my doubting the claptrap you and Pahu have been throwing at us.
Did you know that Christians invented the Scientific Method AND started the first Schools, Colleges and Universities? Well, maybe Pahu isn't posting this stuff for you, did you ever think of that? Maybe he is posting it for the others who stop by and read this thread. He is making a difference for the Lord whether you reject it or not.
Science Disproves Evolution
xfrodobagginsx;1505730 wrote: Did you know that Christians invented the Scientific Method AND started the first Schools, Colleges and Universities? Well, maybe Pahu isn't posting this stuff for you, did you ever think of that? Maybe he is posting it for the others who stop by and read this thread. He is making a difference for the Lord whether you reject it or not.
I matters not where science originated. It matters that its provable, verifiable. Pahu's isn't, by any scientific parameters. You don't get to make up your own science and cherry pick out of context quotes to justify some crank theory that has no basis in truth. And no matter how many times you copy and paste it doesn't make it any more valid.
Pahu's scources, or rather, scource, is from someone from whom even Creationists have distanced themselves.
It's hogwash dressed as science. It's as valid as the Flat Earth Theory.
I matters not where science originated. It matters that its provable, verifiable. Pahu's isn't, by any scientific parameters. You don't get to make up your own science and cherry pick out of context quotes to justify some crank theory that has no basis in truth. And no matter how many times you copy and paste it doesn't make it any more valid.
Pahu's scources, or rather, scource, is from someone from whom even Creationists have distanced themselves.
It's hogwash dressed as science. It's as valid as the Flat Earth Theory.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
xfrodobagginsx
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1505736 wrote: I matters not where science originated. It matters that its provable, verifiable. Pahu's isn't, by any scientific parameters. You don't get to make up your own science and cherry pick out of context quotes to justify some crank theory that has no basis in truth. And no matter how many times you copy and paste it doesn't make it any more valid.
Pahu's scources, or rather, scource, is from someone from whom even Creationists have distanced themselves.
It's hogwash dressed as science. It's as valid as the Flat Earth Theory.
He's not doing that. Also, Evolution isn't verifiable and is certainly not science. Creation Science is Science based on the actual evidence. Evolutionists and Creationists look at the same evidence, yet they draw different conclusions based on that same evidence. That's what you're not getting. Evolutionists can't explain much more than Creationists can't explain. Are you willing to admit that Darwinian Evolution is not science?
Pahu's scources, or rather, scource, is from someone from whom even Creationists have distanced themselves.
It's hogwash dressed as science. It's as valid as the Flat Earth Theory.
He's not doing that. Also, Evolution isn't verifiable and is certainly not science. Creation Science is Science based on the actual evidence. Evolutionists and Creationists look at the same evidence, yet they draw different conclusions based on that same evidence. That's what you're not getting. Evolutionists can't explain much more than Creationists can't explain. Are you willing to admit that Darwinian Evolution is not science?
Science Disproves Evolution
Science, by nature, constantly looks for ways to challenge itself. Creatioism, on the other hand, constantly looks for ways to villify itself, ignoring anything & everything that goes against it's own precepts. If it doesn't agree, then it doesn't exist. Creation Science is an oxymoron. It can only be one or the other. Creationism is based on Faith & Faith alone. It doesn't require evidence because there is none to be found. Evolution has been closely studied & evidence continues to be found that supports it all the way. THAT is Science. Darwin, himself, was originally a Creationist. He had even intended on taking Holy Orders, but the evidence he found led him to challenge the beliefs that had so long been brainwashed into him.
The really stupid thing is that the notion of Evolution & a God are not even incompatible. Who are you to say that God didn't create the Primordial Slime with the intention that it should develop & evolve? Perhaps it was all part of his almighty plan. But, no. You would prefer to lay down the intentions of an imaginary friend to suit the way you want to see it.
The really stupid thing is that the notion of Evolution & a God are not even incompatible. Who are you to say that God didn't create the Primordial Slime with the intention that it should develop & evolve? Perhaps it was all part of his almighty plan. But, no. You would prefer to lay down the intentions of an imaginary friend to suit the way you want to see it.
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1505736 wrote: I matters not where science originated. It matters that its provable, verifiable. Pahu's isn't, by any scientific parameters. You don't get to make up your own science and cherry pick out of context quotes to justify some crank theory that has no basis in truth. And no matter how many times you copy and paste it doesn't make it any more valid.
Pahu's scources, or rather, scource, is from someone from whom even Creationists have distanced themselves.
It's hogwash dressed as science. It's as valid as the Flat Earth Theory.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Brown's education. Here is a partial example. How do your qualifications compare?:
Walt Brown Education
Walt Brown is not only an engineer, but is also quite knowledgeable in many other disciplines as well including geology and paleontology:
Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.
For those who wish to know more about Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco) devotes a chapter to Brown. It may be read by clicking here.
The Center for Scientific Creation
Getting a Masters Degree
Brown chose to transfer into a technically oriented branch of the Army—the Ordnance Corps. This branch dealt with the Army’s equipment, and he felt sure he could find interesting things there.
He was excited to learn that the Ordnance Corps would send him to get a master’s degree. Engineering fascinated him, so he went to study mechanical engineering at New Mexico State University. At New Mexico State, he found that his mechanical engineering courses were interesting but not difficult, so he also took many physics and math courses.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting a Masters Degree
Getting into the Creation Movement
Brown had been teaching at the War College for several years and was offered a splendid job as the Director of the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory near Boston. He seriously considered this job because it would put him around experts in geology and geophysics, even if they were evolutionists. Brown was now very interested in geology because of his study of the global flood. His investigation of creation and the flood had started as scientific curiosity, but as he saw the implications, it grew into a passionate hobby.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting into the Creation Movement
Seminars and Debates
After retiring from the military, Dr. Brown moved to the Chicago area and began giving creation seminars and debating evolutionists. He prepared strenuously for his seminars and debates. He always assumed that several people in the audience knew more about a topic than he did, and he didn’t want to disappoint them. He forced himself to be very broad because people would ask questions concerning the Bible, genetics, astronomy, physics, geology, or chemistry. Dr. Brown’s training as an engineer gave him the tools to explore many disciplines. Engineers ask questions and look for realistic solutions. By definition, engineering—sometimes called applied science—deals with making science useful to people. And that is exactly what Dr. Brown did in his seminars.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Seminars and Debates
Crossroads
He decided to devote himself to studying geology from the evolutionists’ perspective. He realized that most creationists don’t study what the evolutionists are saying—seeing their reasoning and going through their calculations. He knew that a good lawyer knows the other case as well as the opposing lawyer knows it. A solid knowledge of geology would help him build a stronger case for creation.
So Peggy found a teaching job and Walt signed up to study geology at Arizona State University. Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the world’s leading geologists, taught there. Several years earlier in 1981, Dr. Brown had given a lecture on creation at Arizona State after the university had been unable to find an evolutionist debater. Days before the lecture, Dr. Dietz asked if he could comment after the lecture. He talked for ten minutes giving his reasons why he thought Dr. Brown was wrong. Then Dr. Brown challenged him to a written, purely scientific debate—no religion allowed. Earlier that day when Dr. Brown had lunch with Dr. Dietz, Dr. Dietz had flatly refused to participate in a written debate. But now that he was in front of this large audience, he agreed. The audience applauded and the newspaper featured the upcoming written debate.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Crossroads
Learning Geology
Now that Dr. Brown would be walking the halls of the geology department, he decided he had better say hello to Dr. Dietz. By now, Dr. Brown knew exactly who Robert S. Dietz was. He was the leading atheist of the Southwest, completely hostile to creationists. He was also a world-famous geologist, one of the founders of the plate tectonic theory—one of the most significant theories of the twentieth century in the opinion of most scientists.
Dr. Brown went to Dr. Dietz’s office and told him he was there to learn geology from Dr. Dietz’s perspective. Oddly enough, that was the beginning of their friendship. Dr. Dietz offered to meet with Dr. Brown each Wednesday afternoon for several hours of discussion. They spent hundreds of hours discussing geology, comparing Dr. Dietz’s plate tectonic theory and Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory. After their private sessions, they went down to the Wednesday afternoon geology forum and listened to a visiting geology speaker. Sometimes Dr. Dietz would invite Dr. Brown out to eat with the guest speaker.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Learning Geology
Geology
Dr. Brown spent several years studying geology. His background in engineering gave him a strong grasp of the math and physics involved in geological processes. He found that while geologists are skilled at describing what they see, most don’t pause to figure out the mechanics and the feasibility of their theories. They talk about long periods of time and think that the sheer amount of time glosses over the mechanical difficulties of what they are describing. They don’t concentrate on energy, forces, causes, and effects. But Dr. Brown brought a fresh mindset to his study of geology. He thought as an engineer, a mathematician firmly grounded in physics.
There is also a not-so-subtle arrogance in the entrenched geology establishment. They resent an “outsider†intruding in their field. This sounds similar to the criticism that Lord Kelvin received when he waded into the geological age controversy with the geologists of his day. Interestingly, the founders of modern geology, men who have contributed greatly to conventional geological thinking, were not even trained as geologists.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Geology
Dr. Brown’s move to Phoenix was a crucial turning point in his life. If he had continued with the seminar work full-time, as he had originally hoped, he wouldn’t have had time to study geology and work on his book. Although his seminars had been useful in getting out the creation message, Dr. Brown’s book has reached a much wider audience.
His book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, more closely resembles an encyclopedia than any other kind of book. Here he summarizes the evidences for creation and explains his hydroplate theory of the flood. Based on this theory, he has found that twenty-five major features of the earth can be explained logically. Scientists who have taken the time to understand the theory have often converted to flood geology, because Dr. Brown gives them a scientifically acceptable approach that is intellectually satisfying. Scientists are struck by diverse problems the hydroplate theory solves.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World
Pahu's scources, or rather, scource, is from someone from whom even Creationists have distanced themselves.
It's hogwash dressed as science. It's as valid as the Flat Earth Theory.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Brown's education. Here is a partial example. How do your qualifications compare?:
Walt Brown Education
Walt Brown is not only an engineer, but is also quite knowledgeable in many other disciplines as well including geology and paleontology:
Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.
For those who wish to know more about Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco) devotes a chapter to Brown. It may be read by clicking here.
The Center for Scientific Creation
Getting a Masters Degree
Brown chose to transfer into a technically oriented branch of the Army—the Ordnance Corps. This branch dealt with the Army’s equipment, and he felt sure he could find interesting things there.
He was excited to learn that the Ordnance Corps would send him to get a master’s degree. Engineering fascinated him, so he went to study mechanical engineering at New Mexico State University. At New Mexico State, he found that his mechanical engineering courses were interesting but not difficult, so he also took many physics and math courses.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting a Masters Degree
Getting into the Creation Movement
Brown had been teaching at the War College for several years and was offered a splendid job as the Director of the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory near Boston. He seriously considered this job because it would put him around experts in geology and geophysics, even if they were evolutionists. Brown was now very interested in geology because of his study of the global flood. His investigation of creation and the flood had started as scientific curiosity, but as he saw the implications, it grew into a passionate hobby.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting into the Creation Movement
Seminars and Debates
After retiring from the military, Dr. Brown moved to the Chicago area and began giving creation seminars and debating evolutionists. He prepared strenuously for his seminars and debates. He always assumed that several people in the audience knew more about a topic than he did, and he didn’t want to disappoint them. He forced himself to be very broad because people would ask questions concerning the Bible, genetics, astronomy, physics, geology, or chemistry. Dr. Brown’s training as an engineer gave him the tools to explore many disciplines. Engineers ask questions and look for realistic solutions. By definition, engineering—sometimes called applied science—deals with making science useful to people. And that is exactly what Dr. Brown did in his seminars.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Seminars and Debates
Crossroads
He decided to devote himself to studying geology from the evolutionists’ perspective. He realized that most creationists don’t study what the evolutionists are saying—seeing their reasoning and going through their calculations. He knew that a good lawyer knows the other case as well as the opposing lawyer knows it. A solid knowledge of geology would help him build a stronger case for creation.
So Peggy found a teaching job and Walt signed up to study geology at Arizona State University. Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the world’s leading geologists, taught there. Several years earlier in 1981, Dr. Brown had given a lecture on creation at Arizona State after the university had been unable to find an evolutionist debater. Days before the lecture, Dr. Dietz asked if he could comment after the lecture. He talked for ten minutes giving his reasons why he thought Dr. Brown was wrong. Then Dr. Brown challenged him to a written, purely scientific debate—no religion allowed. Earlier that day when Dr. Brown had lunch with Dr. Dietz, Dr. Dietz had flatly refused to participate in a written debate. But now that he was in front of this large audience, he agreed. The audience applauded and the newspaper featured the upcoming written debate.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Crossroads
Learning Geology
Now that Dr. Brown would be walking the halls of the geology department, he decided he had better say hello to Dr. Dietz. By now, Dr. Brown knew exactly who Robert S. Dietz was. He was the leading atheist of the Southwest, completely hostile to creationists. He was also a world-famous geologist, one of the founders of the plate tectonic theory—one of the most significant theories of the twentieth century in the opinion of most scientists.
Dr. Brown went to Dr. Dietz’s office and told him he was there to learn geology from Dr. Dietz’s perspective. Oddly enough, that was the beginning of their friendship. Dr. Dietz offered to meet with Dr. Brown each Wednesday afternoon for several hours of discussion. They spent hundreds of hours discussing geology, comparing Dr. Dietz’s plate tectonic theory and Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory. After their private sessions, they went down to the Wednesday afternoon geology forum and listened to a visiting geology speaker. Sometimes Dr. Dietz would invite Dr. Brown out to eat with the guest speaker.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Learning Geology
Geology
Dr. Brown spent several years studying geology. His background in engineering gave him a strong grasp of the math and physics involved in geological processes. He found that while geologists are skilled at describing what they see, most don’t pause to figure out the mechanics and the feasibility of their theories. They talk about long periods of time and think that the sheer amount of time glosses over the mechanical difficulties of what they are describing. They don’t concentrate on energy, forces, causes, and effects. But Dr. Brown brought a fresh mindset to his study of geology. He thought as an engineer, a mathematician firmly grounded in physics.
There is also a not-so-subtle arrogance in the entrenched geology establishment. They resent an “outsider†intruding in their field. This sounds similar to the criticism that Lord Kelvin received when he waded into the geological age controversy with the geologists of his day. Interestingly, the founders of modern geology, men who have contributed greatly to conventional geological thinking, were not even trained as geologists.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Geology
Dr. Brown’s move to Phoenix was a crucial turning point in his life. If he had continued with the seminar work full-time, as he had originally hoped, he wouldn’t have had time to study geology and work on his book. Although his seminars had been useful in getting out the creation message, Dr. Brown’s book has reached a much wider audience.
His book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, more closely resembles an encyclopedia than any other kind of book. Here he summarizes the evidences for creation and explains his hydroplate theory of the flood. Based on this theory, he has found that twenty-five major features of the earth can be explained logically. Scientists who have taken the time to understand the theory have often converted to flood geology, because Dr. Brown gives them a scientifically acceptable approach that is intellectually satisfying. Scientists are struck by diverse problems the hydroplate theory solves.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1505740 wrote: Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering
Aka "Metalwork". That hardly qualifies him to set himself up as any sort of qualified expert on Quantum Physics, Cosmology, Theology, or even Geology. He, however, waves his meaningless PHd at any slightest opportunity.
Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model Doesn't Hold Water
http://www.fsteiger.com/debunk.html
Aka "Metalwork". That hardly qualifies him to set himself up as any sort of qualified expert on Quantum Physics, Cosmology, Theology, or even Geology. He, however, waves his meaningless PHd at any slightest opportunity.
Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model Doesn't Hold Water
http://www.fsteiger.com/debunk.html
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1505742 wrote: Aka "Metalwork". That hardly qualifies him to set himself up as any sort of qualified expert on Quantum Physics, Cosmology, Theology, or even Geology. He, however, waves his meaningless PHd at any slightest opportunity.
Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model Doesn't Hold Water
Center for Scientific Creation
Remember that Walt Brown relied on scientists to fill any gaps in his education, and they confirmed his conclusions, such as:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model Doesn't Hold Water
Center for Scientific Creation
Remember that Walt Brown relied on scientists to fill any gaps in his education, and they confirmed his conclusions, such as:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1505743 wrote: Remember that Walt Brown relied on scientists to fill any gaps in his education, and they confirmed his conclusions, such as:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
We've been through all of that, before.
A number of people on that list are journalists, rather than scientists, and most of the "agreements with Walt Brown's "Findings" are simply specific sentences uttered during completely unrelated conversations, taken out of context and massaged to appear to be agreeing with Mr Brown.
Being a Christian, myself, I find your efforts at perversion of truth insulting and ridiculous.
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
We've been through all of that, before.
A number of people on that list are journalists, rather than scientists, and most of the "agreements with Walt Brown's "Findings" are simply specific sentences uttered during completely unrelated conversations, taken out of context and massaged to appear to be agreeing with Mr Brown.
Being a Christian, myself, I find your efforts at perversion of truth insulting and ridiculous.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
xfrodobagginsx
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu, I sent you a private message.
-
xfrodobagginsx
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1505749 wrote: We've been through all of that, before.
A number of people on that list are journalists, rather than scientists, and most of the "agreements with Walt Brown's "Findings" are simply specific sentences uttered during completely unrelated conversations, taken out of context and massaged to appear to be agreeing with Mr Brown.
Being a Christian, myself, I find your efforts at perversion of truth insulting and ridiculous.
Ok, what about the many scientists who ARE on that list. How much evidence do you need? I think that for some people, there is just no amount of evidence that will convince them due to the fact that they have already determined in their mind that they are right and all other views are wrong. It's interesting how Christians get accused of this, no matter how much the evidence backs them up.
A number of people on that list are journalists, rather than scientists, and most of the "agreements with Walt Brown's "Findings" are simply specific sentences uttered during completely unrelated conversations, taken out of context and massaged to appear to be agreeing with Mr Brown.
Being a Christian, myself, I find your efforts at perversion of truth insulting and ridiculous.
Ok, what about the many scientists who ARE on that list. How much evidence do you need? I think that for some people, there is just no amount of evidence that will convince them due to the fact that they have already determined in their mind that they are right and all other views are wrong. It's interesting how Christians get accused of this, no matter how much the evidence backs them up.
Science Disproves Evolution
There are a lot of folks on the earth who are pseudo scientists. Their work has to be peer reviewed by recognized scientists. Then there is the horrendous long post above. Be damned If I'm going to read that nonsnese. Skimmed a few pages and felt like I was going to ppuke.
Science Disproves Evolution
Lars according to some you and I are not Christianm according to their reading. I think by now down there has switched from coal to gas. Don't want pollution in Hell. LOL
Science Disproves Evolution
xfrodobagginsx;1505753 wrote: Ok, what about the many scientists who ARE on that list. How much evidence do you need? I think that for some people, there is just no amount of evidence that will convince them due to the fact that they have already determined in their mind that they are right and all other views are wrong. It's interesting how Christians get accused of this, no matter how much the evidence backs them up.
My statement above applies to all of the names on the list, writers AND Scientist. As stated: ...and most of the "agreements with Walt Brown's "Findings" are simply specific sentences uttered during completely unrelated conversations, taken out of context and massaged to appear to be agreeing with Mr Brown.
Again, Pahu offers no scientific evidence to support his assertion. Only quasi-science, and opinion.
If you wish to interpret his ramblings as science, have at it.
My statement above applies to all of the names on the list, writers AND Scientist. As stated: ...and most of the "agreements with Walt Brown's "Findings" are simply specific sentences uttered during completely unrelated conversations, taken out of context and massaged to appear to be agreeing with Mr Brown.
Again, Pahu offers no scientific evidence to support his assertion. Only quasi-science, and opinion.
If you wish to interpret his ramblings as science, have at it.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Language 1
Children as young as seven months can understand and learn grammatical rules (a). Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact (feral children) show that language is learned only from other humans; humans do not automatically speak. So, the first humans must have been endowed with a language ability. There is no evidence language evolved (b).
Nonhumans communicate, but not with language. True language requires both vocabulary and grammar. With great effort, human trainers have taught some chimpanzees and gorillas to recognize a few hundred spoken words, to point to up to 200 symbols, and to make limited hand signs. These impressive feats are sometimes exaggerated by editing the animals’ successes on film (Some early demonstrations were flawed by the trainer’s hidden promptings (c)).
Wild apes have not shown these vocabulary skills, and trained apes do not pass their vocabulary on to others. When a trained animal dies, so does the trainer’s investment. Also, trained apes have essentially no grammatical ability. Only with grammar can a few words express many ideas. No known evidence shows that language exists or evolves in nonhumans, but all known human groups have language (d).
Furthermore, only humans have different modes of language: speaking/hearing, writing/reading, signing, touch (as with Braille), and tapping (as with Morse code or tap-codes used by prisoners). When one mode is prevented, as with the loss of hearing, others can be used (e).
a. G. F. Marcus et al., “Rule Learning by Seven-Month-Old Infants,†Science, Vol. 283, 1 January 1999, pp. 77–80.
b. Arthur Custance, Genesis and Early Man (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975), pp. 250–271.
“Nobody knows how [language] began. There doesn’t seem to be anything like syntax in non-human animals and it is hard to imagine evolutionary forerunners of it.†Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998), p. 294.
c. “Projects devoted to teaching chimpanzees and gorillas to use language have shown that these apes can learn vocabularies of visual symbols. There is no evidence, however, that apes can combine such symbols in order to create new meanings. The function of the symbols of an ape’s vocabulary appears to be not so much to identify things or to convey information as it is to satisfy a demand that it use that symbol in order to obtain some reward.†H. S. Terrance et al., “Can an Ape Create a Sentence?†Science, Vol. 206, 23 November 1979, p. 900.
“...human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world.†Noam Chomsky, Language and Mind (Chicago: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1968), p. 59.
d. “No languageless community has ever been found.†Jean Aitchison, The Atlas of Languages (New York: Facts on File, Inc., 1996), p. 10.
“There is no reason to suppose that the ‘gaps’ [in language development between apes and man] are bridgeable.†Chomsky, p. 60.
e. “...[concerning imitation, not language] only humans can lose one modality (e.g., hearing) and make up for this deficit by communicating with complete competence in a different modality (i.e., signing).†Marc D. Hauser et al., “The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?†Science, Vol. 298, 22 November 2002, p. 1575.
[From “In the Beginning†by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1505739 wrote:
The really stupid thing is that the notion of Evolution & a God are not even incompatible. Who are you to say that God didn't create the Primordial Slime with the intention that it should develop & evolve? Perhaps it was all part of his almighty plan. But, no. You would prefer to lay down the intentions of an imaginary friend to suit the way you want to see it.
Of course God could have done it that way, but He revealed that He created everything and everyone. He did not create evolution, and remember, there is no evidence supporting evolution. That leaves creation!
The really stupid thing is that the notion of Evolution & a God are not even incompatible. Who are you to say that God didn't create the Primordial Slime with the intention that it should develop & evolve? Perhaps it was all part of his almighty plan. But, no. You would prefer to lay down the intentions of an imaginary friend to suit the way you want to see it.
Of course God could have done it that way, but He revealed that He created everything and everyone. He did not create evolution, and remember, there is no evidence supporting evolution. That leaves creation!
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1505749 wrote: We've been through all of that, before.
A number of people on that list are journalists, rather than scientists, and most of the "agreements with Walt Brown's "Findings" are simply specific sentences uttered during completely unrelated conversations, taken out of context and massaged to appear to be agreeing with Mr Brown.
Being a Christian, myself, I find your efforts at perversion of truth insulting and ridiculous.
Which names are not scientists?
What statements are specific sentences uttered during completely unrelated conversations, taken out of context and massaged to appear to be agreeing with Mr Brown?
A number of people on that list are journalists, rather than scientists, and most of the "agreements with Walt Brown's "Findings" are simply specific sentences uttered during completely unrelated conversations, taken out of context and massaged to appear to be agreeing with Mr Brown.
Being a Christian, myself, I find your efforts at perversion of truth insulting and ridiculous.
Which names are not scientists?
What statements are specific sentences uttered during completely unrelated conversations, taken out of context and massaged to appear to be agreeing with Mr Brown?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1505852 wrote: Which names are not scientists?
What statements are specific sentences uttered during completely unrelated conversations, taken out of context and massaged to appear to be agreeing with Mr Brown?
As I stated in my recent post, We've been through all of that. I've pointed a number of them out.
Since you obviously never paid them any mind, I can't see repeating the exercise.
What statements are specific sentences uttered during completely unrelated conversations, taken out of context and massaged to appear to be agreeing with Mr Brown?
As I stated in my recent post, We've been through all of that. I've pointed a number of them out.
Since you obviously never paid them any mind, I can't see repeating the exercise.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
xfrodobagginsx
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1505854 wrote: As I stated in my recent post, We've been through all of that. I've pointed a number of them out.
Since you obviously never paid them any mind, I can't see repeating the exercise.
And like I said, what about the ones who ARE Scientists in your eyes?
Since you obviously never paid them any mind, I can't see repeating the exercise.
And like I said, what about the ones who ARE Scientists in your eyes?
Science Disproves Evolution
xfrodobagginsx;1505857 wrote: And like I said, what about the ones who ARE Scientists in your eyes?
They are either scientists, or they are not. My eyes have nothing to do with it.
Journalists are journalists. Scientists are scientists.
The point is, that of the 2 dozen or so people on that list for which I tracked down the quote referred to in Brown's book as supporting his "Theories" I found that most of the time, a single sentence within and article was taken completely out of it's context, and posted in Brown's references as supporting some notion of his.
When read in context of the original writing by the author, it had nothing whatsoever to do with Brown's suppositions. So Brown is falsely claiming that these people support his claims.
And only unschooled, brainwashed dolts will buy into such claptrap.
Lies and fairytales are all you and your ilk have to offer.
They are either scientists, or they are not. My eyes have nothing to do with it.
Journalists are journalists. Scientists are scientists.
The point is, that of the 2 dozen or so people on that list for which I tracked down the quote referred to in Brown's book as supporting his "Theories" I found that most of the time, a single sentence within and article was taken completely out of it's context, and posted in Brown's references as supporting some notion of his.
When read in context of the original writing by the author, it had nothing whatsoever to do with Brown's suppositions. So Brown is falsely claiming that these people support his claims.
And only unschooled, brainwashed dolts will buy into such claptrap.
Lies and fairytales are all you and your ilk have to offer.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1505854 wrote: As I stated in my recent post, We've been through all of that. I've pointed a number of them out.
Since you obviously never paid them any mind, I can't see repeating the exercise.
Did you? I doubt that. Your response reveals you can't answer my questions and are merely making up false statements in an effort to hide that fact.
Since you obviously never paid them any mind, I can't see repeating the exercise.
Did you? I doubt that. Your response reveals you can't answer my questions and are merely making up false statements in an effort to hide that fact.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1505861 wrote: They are either scientists, or they are not. My eyes have nothing to do with it.
Journalists are journalists. Scientists are scientists.
The point is, that of the 2 dozen or so people on that list for which I tracked down the quote referred to in Brown's book as supporting his "Theories" I found that most of the time, a single sentence within and article was taken completely out of it's context, and posted in Brown's references as supporting some notion of his.
When read in context of the original writing by the author, it had nothing whatsoever to do with Brown's suppositions. So Brown is falsely claiming that these people support his claims.
And only unschooled, brainwashed dolts will buy into such claptrap.
Lies and fairytales are all you and your ilk have to offer.
Only unschooled, brainwashed dolts will buy into your false statements.
Lies and fairytales are all you and your ilk have to offer.
If I am mistaken, you can prove that by showing us that when read in context of the original writing by the author, it had nothing whatsoever to do with Brown's conclusions, which means Brown is falsely claiming that these people support his claims. Otherwise admit your are making false statements.
Also, why have you failed to show us which names on that list are not scientists. Is it because you can't? Claiming you have done so sometime in the past won't fly.
Journalists are journalists. Scientists are scientists.
The point is, that of the 2 dozen or so people on that list for which I tracked down the quote referred to in Brown's book as supporting his "Theories" I found that most of the time, a single sentence within and article was taken completely out of it's context, and posted in Brown's references as supporting some notion of his.
When read in context of the original writing by the author, it had nothing whatsoever to do with Brown's suppositions. So Brown is falsely claiming that these people support his claims.
And only unschooled, brainwashed dolts will buy into such claptrap.
Lies and fairytales are all you and your ilk have to offer.
Only unschooled, brainwashed dolts will buy into your false statements.
Lies and fairytales are all you and your ilk have to offer.
If I am mistaken, you can prove that by showing us that when read in context of the original writing by the author, it had nothing whatsoever to do with Brown's conclusions, which means Brown is falsely claiming that these people support his claims. Otherwise admit your are making false statements.
Also, why have you failed to show us which names on that list are not scientists. Is it because you can't? Claiming you have done so sometime in the past won't fly.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1505869 wrote: Only unschooled, brainwashed dolts will buy into your false statements.
Lies and fairytales are all you and your ilk have to offer.
If I am mistaken, you can prove that by showing us that when read in context of the original writing by the author, it had nothing whatsoever to do with Brown's conclusions, which means Brown is falsely claiming that these people support his claims. Otherwise admit your are making false statements.
Also, why have you failed to show us which names on that list are not scientists. Is it because you can't? Claiming you have done so sometime in the past won't fly.
OK, will let's start here, then:
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1484097
Lies and fairytales are all you and your ilk have to offer.
If I am mistaken, you can prove that by showing us that when read in context of the original writing by the author, it had nothing whatsoever to do with Brown's conclusions, which means Brown is falsely claiming that these people support his claims. Otherwise admit your are making false statements.
Also, why have you failed to show us which names on that list are not scientists. Is it because you can't? Claiming you have done so sometime in the past won't fly.
OK, will let's start here, then:
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1484097
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1505870 wrote: OK, will let's start here, then:
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1484097
If this is what you are referring to, where is the problem?:
Re: Science Disproves Evolution
Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac
We had that conversation a while back with the Hawking's quote. Taken by itself, you can read a context with which could claim that Hawking supports your view of the Universe, while the paragraph from which it was extracted makes a completely different statement.
You, of course simply rejected the idea, and declared all the other sentences in to be "speculation"
That's because they were. Here is his statement again:
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end, it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 140–141.
The first sentence in his statement is accurate and agrees with what Walt Brown said: "A beginning suggests a Creator." The rest of Hawking's statement begins with but if, and he proceeds to speculate. If you are unable or unwilling to see the difference between fact and speculation it is probably due to the fact that you don't want to admit your error because it conflicts with what you want to believe.
If that is the best you can come up with, you might as well quit. Also, notice I am not making a statement about my view of the universe. I am simply showing where Hawking's statement coincides with Walt Brown's.
Also, notice Hawking is a scientist. Where are the names that are not scientists?
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1484097
If this is what you are referring to, where is the problem?:
Re: Science Disproves Evolution
Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac
We had that conversation a while back with the Hawking's quote. Taken by itself, you can read a context with which could claim that Hawking supports your view of the Universe, while the paragraph from which it was extracted makes a completely different statement.
You, of course simply rejected the idea, and declared all the other sentences in to be "speculation"
That's because they were. Here is his statement again:
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end, it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 140–141.
The first sentence in his statement is accurate and agrees with what Walt Brown said: "A beginning suggests a Creator." The rest of Hawking's statement begins with but if, and he proceeds to speculate. If you are unable or unwilling to see the difference between fact and speculation it is probably due to the fact that you don't want to admit your error because it conflicts with what you want to believe.
If that is the best you can come up with, you might as well quit. Also, notice I am not making a statement about my view of the universe. I am simply showing where Hawking's statement coincides with Walt Brown's.
Also, notice Hawking is a scientist. Where are the names that are not scientists?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1505871 wrote: If this is what you are referring to, where is the problem?:
Re: Science Disproves Evolution
Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac
We had that conversation a while back with the Hawking's quote. Taken by itself, you can read a context with which could claim that Hawking supports your view of the Universe, while the paragraph from which it was extracted makes a completely different statement.
You, of course simply rejected the idea, and declared all the other sentences in to be "speculation"
That's because they were. Here is his statement again:
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end, it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 140–141.
The first sentence in his statement is accurate and agrees with what Walt Brown said: "A beginning suggests a Creator." The rest of Hawking's statement begins with but if, and he proceeds to speculate. If you are unable or unwilling to see the difference between fact and speculation it is probably due to the fact that you don't want to admit your error because it conflicts with what you want to believe.
If that is the best you can come up with, you might as well quit. Also, notice I am not making a statement about my view of the universe. I am simply showing where Hawking's statement coincides with Walt Brown's.
Also, notice Hawking is a scientist. Where are the names that are not scientists?
No, that was merely an example. There are a number of such examples, but I have not the time to go back and find them all.
You, and Mr Brown's organization as a whole, claim that these scientists support Brown's findings and use these quotes to show that.
So take Mr Hawkings statement, in toto, and explain how this statement actively supports Brown's suppositions.
Re: Science Disproves Evolution
Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac
We had that conversation a while back with the Hawking's quote. Taken by itself, you can read a context with which could claim that Hawking supports your view of the Universe, while the paragraph from which it was extracted makes a completely different statement.
You, of course simply rejected the idea, and declared all the other sentences in to be "speculation"
That's because they were. Here is his statement again:
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end, it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 140–141.
The first sentence in his statement is accurate and agrees with what Walt Brown said: "A beginning suggests a Creator." The rest of Hawking's statement begins with but if, and he proceeds to speculate. If you are unable or unwilling to see the difference between fact and speculation it is probably due to the fact that you don't want to admit your error because it conflicts with what you want to believe.
If that is the best you can come up with, you might as well quit. Also, notice I am not making a statement about my view of the universe. I am simply showing where Hawking's statement coincides with Walt Brown's.
Also, notice Hawking is a scientist. Where are the names that are not scientists?
No, that was merely an example. There are a number of such examples, but I have not the time to go back and find them all.
You, and Mr Brown's organization as a whole, claim that these scientists support Brown's findings and use these quotes to show that.
So take Mr Hawkings statement, in toto, and explain how this statement actively supports Brown's suppositions.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1505872 wrote: No, that was merely an example. There are a number of such examples, but I have not the time to go back and find them all.
You, and Mr Brown's organization as a whole, claim that these scientists support Brown's findings and use these quotes to show that.
So take Mr Hawkings statement, in toto, and explain how this statement actively supports Brown's suppositions.
He agreed with Walt Brown, which is the point.
Where are the non-scientists on that list?
You, and Mr Brown's organization as a whole, claim that these scientists support Brown's findings and use these quotes to show that.
So take Mr Hawkings statement, in toto, and explain how this statement actively supports Brown's suppositions.
He agreed with Walt Brown, which is the point.
Where are the non-scientists on that list?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1505888 wrote: He agreed with Walt Brown, which is the point.
Where are the non-scientists on that list?
No, Mr Hawkings did NOT agree with Brown. What he wrote had nothing at all to do with Brown.
You are truly amazing, I must say.
And I don't plan to re-hash the conversations, and spend my day digging up old posts, for you.
Where are the non-scientists on that list?
No, Mr Hawkings did NOT agree with Brown. What he wrote had nothing at all to do with Brown.
You are truly amazing, I must say.
And I don't plan to re-hash the conversations, and spend my day digging up old posts, for you.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
It is all reather funny to watch wishful thi king. LOL
Science Disproves Evolution
Within just a few posts of my saying that it wouldn't be long before he brought out the irrelevant & unrelated lists of names & journals he does just that. Pahu repeatedly makes claim that this list of names have published support in the other list of publications. However, despite multiple challenges to do so, NOT ONCE has he managed to cross reference any of the names in the first list to any of those in the second, let alone anywhere that it is claimed these alleged statements of support take place. Why not? The answer is quite simple. 1. The citations are entirely fictional. Just pick a list of names out of Who's Who & a stock list from the local Newsagent & make claim that those randomly named in the first list made publications in the 2nd list. 2. The reason he cannot provide cross reference is because he takes everything that Brown says at face value without question or checking the validity of his sources. Needless to say a phoney claim made in the book is incapable of validating sources that do not exist, so the cross references simply do not exist, therefore Pahu has nothing to draw from.
Nobody can possibly expect their own writings to be taken as proof of anything that anyone else is supposed to have said. It HAS to be cited as to WHAT was said, WHEN it was said, WHERE it was said & in what CONTEXT. Pahu / Brown has never provided any of these.
The next thing I predicted he would do he also fulfilled - once pushed into a corner he responded by pasting another chapter of irrelevent twaddle. Typical Pahu M.O.
Nobody can possibly expect their own writings to be taken as proof of anything that anyone else is supposed to have said. It HAS to be cited as to WHAT was said, WHEN it was said, WHERE it was said & in what CONTEXT. Pahu / Brown has never provided any of these.
The next thing I predicted he would do he also fulfilled - once pushed into a corner he responded by pasting another chapter of irrelevent twaddle. Typical Pahu M.O.
-
xfrodobagginsx
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am
Science Disproves Evolution
Ahso!;1503600 wrote: Looks as though God and you are a lot alike - you both appear to make it up as you go.
It's interesting how the unbelieving have animosity toward God and His people. Remember that Pahu that the unbelieving are going to be hostile to God and His people. Keep up the good work spreading the truth!
Ro 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. {the carnal...: Gr. the minding of the flesh}
It's interesting how the unbelieving have animosity toward God and His people. Remember that Pahu that the unbelieving are going to be hostile to God and His people. Keep up the good work spreading the truth!
Ro 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. {the carnal...: Gr. the minding of the flesh}
Science Disproves Evolution
xfrodobagginsx;1505943 wrote: It's interesting how the unbelieving have animosity toward God and His people. Remember that Pahu that the unbelieving are going to be hostile to God and His people. Keep up the good work spreading the truth!
Ro 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. {the carnal...: Gr. the minding of the flesh}
Well, my animosity is not toward God, at all. It is simply towards people who tell lies and spread falsehood in His name.
Ro 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. {the carnal...: Gr. the minding of the flesh}
Well, my animosity is not toward God, at all. It is simply towards people who tell lies and spread falsehood in His name.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1505933 wrote: Within just a few posts of my saying that it wouldn't be long before he brought out the irrelevant & unrelated lists of names & journals he does just that. Pahu repeatedly makes claim that this list of names have published support in the other list of publications. However, despite multiple challenges to do so, NOT ONCE has he managed to cross reference any of the names in the first list to any of those in the second, let alone anywhere that it is claimed these alleged statements of support take place. Why not? The answer is quite simple. 1. The citations are entirely fictional. Just pick a list of names out of Who's Who & a stock list from the local Newsagent & make claim that those randomly named in the first list made publications in the 2nd list. 2. The reason he cannot provide cross reference is because he takes everything that Brown says at face value without question or checking the validity of his sources. Needless to say a phoney claim made in the book is incapable of validating sources that do not exist, so the cross references simply do not exist, therefore Pahu has nothing to draw from.
Nobody can possibly expect their own writings to be taken as proof of anything that anyone else is supposed to have said. It HAS to be cited as to WHAT was said, WHEN it was said, WHERE it was said & in what CONTEXT. Pahu / Brown has never provided any of these.
The next thing I predicted he would do he also fulfilled - once pushed into a corner he responded by pasting another chapter of irrelevent twaddle. Typical Pahu M.O.
Wrong! Each name on that list is a scientist who confirms Walt Brown's conclusions and in the past I have given some examples.
Nobody can possibly expect their own writings to be taken as proof of anything that anyone else is supposed to have said. It HAS to be cited as to WHAT was said, WHEN it was said, WHERE it was said & in what CONTEXT. Pahu / Brown has never provided any of these.
The next thing I predicted he would do he also fulfilled - once pushed into a corner he responded by pasting another chapter of irrelevent twaddle. Typical Pahu M.O.
Wrong! Each name on that list is a scientist who confirms Walt Brown's conclusions and in the past I have given some examples.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
xfrodobagginsx;1505943 wrote: It's interesting how the unbelieving have animosity toward God and His people.
But not surprising since they desperately cling to their false dogma that God does not exist despite evidence to the contrary.
But not surprising since they desperately cling to their false dogma that God does not exist despite evidence to the contrary.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1505948 wrote: Well, my animosity is not toward God, at all. It is simply towards people who tell lies and spread falsehood in His name.
For example?
For example?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1505963 wrote: For example?
For example, pretty much everything you have posted in this thread has been, at best, a misapplication of the facts.
For example, pretty much everything you have posted in this thread has been, at best, a misapplication of the facts.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
This is not animosity towards God. It is animosity towards those who mislead in the name of God. They have been doing this since 150 To misuse the Bible in the way it is done is a form of idolatry.. They should reread the famous 10.. That is fundamentalism.As far as I'm concerned Pahu is a joke.l
Science Disproves Evolution
Lars now even Trump has alternative facts. LOL