Science Disproves Evolution

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 1:07 pm

FourPart;1468308 wrote: I'll leave you to continue pasting to yourself. It's no fun trying to debate with someone who doesn't have mind of their own.

Same thing I did a while ago. It's kind of like trying to carry on a conversation with a catatonic. Sure they won't argue with you, but where's the fun in that? I mean, look at Pahu's post count: 2396. And all of them in this thread. He shows no interest in any other thread, no interest even in other religious threads.

It's obviously a psychological obsession with him in the clinical sense. Nothing short of a complete psychic break or some cataclysmic event such as the finding of alien life on another planet could shake him from his beliefs. (Notice that he refuses even to admit the possibility of extraterrestrial life because that would challenge his entire belief system!)

So his muttering in this corner of the forum is similar to the incessant scribing of monks in the middle ages or the self flagellation of religious zealots.

As a matter of fact, "zealot" is a perfect definition for him.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:28 pm

Personally, I reckon his real name is Walt Brown & that he's just spamming his own book.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Dec 10, 2014 8:32 am

Life Science Conclusions 3

Before 1977, it was thought that sunlight provided the energy for all life. We now know that some organisms, living at widely separated locations on the dark ocean floor, use only chemical and thermal energy. For one energy-conversion system to evolve into another would be like changing, by thousands of rare accidents, the wood-burning heating systems of widely separated homes to electricity—but slowly, one accident each year. The occupants would risk freezing every winter. How such a system could evolve on different ocean floors, without solar energy, and in a cold, diluting environment has yet to be explained.

If evolution happened, many other giant leaps must also have occurred: the first photosynthesis, cold-blooded to warm-blooded animals, floating marine plants to vascular plants, placental mammals to marsupials, egg-laying animals to animals that bear live young, insect metamorphosis, the transition of mammals to the sea (whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, sea lions, and manatees), the transition of reptiles to the sea (plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs), and on and on.

Gaps in the fossil record are well known. A century ago, evolutionists argued that these gaps would be filled as knowledge increased. The same gaps persist, and most paleontologists now admit that those predictions failed. Of course, the most famous “missing link is between man and apes, but the term is deceiving. There is not merely one missing link, but thousands—a long chain—if the evolutionary tree were to connect man and apes (with their many linguistic, social, mental, and physical differences).

Scientific advancements have shown that evolution is an even more absurd theory than it seemed in Darwin’s day. It is a theory without a mechanism. Not even appeals to long periods of time will allow simple organisms to “jump gaps and become more complex and viable. In fact, as the next section will show, long periods of time make such leaps even less likely. Later in this book, you will see that those long, unimaginable time periods in which evolution was claimed were a result of a scientific blunder—failure to understand the origin of earth’s radioactivity.

Breeding experiments that many had hoped would demonstrate macroevolution have failed. The arguments used by Darwin and his followers are now discredited or, at best, in dispute, even among evolutionists. Finally, research during the last several decades has shown that the requirements for life are incredibly complex. Just the design that most people can see around them obviously implies a designer. Oddly enough, evolutionists still argue against this design by using arguments which they spent a great deal of time designing. The theory of organic evolution is invalid.

As we leave the life sciences and examine the astronomical and physical sciences, we will see many other serious problems with evolutionary theories. If the Earth, the solar system, our galaxy, the universe, or even the heavier chemical elements could not have evolved, as now seems to be the case, then organic evolution could not even have begun.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Dec 17, 2014 11:55 am

Strange Planets 1

Many undisputed observations contradict current theories on how the solar system evolved (a). One theory says planets formed when a star, passing near our Sun, tore matter from the Sun. More popular theories hold that the solar system formed from a cloud of swirling gas, dust, or larger particles. If the planets and their known moons evolved from the same material, they should have many similarities. After several decades of planetary exploration, this expectation is now recognized as false (b).

Figure*22: Unique Planets. This is a composite photograph (not-to-scale) of all planets in the solar system, except Pluto. They are, from top to bottom: Mercury, Venus, Earth (with the Moon to the right), Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. The photos were taken by Mariner 10 (Mercury), Pioneer Venus Orbiter (Venus), Apollo 17 astronauts (Earth), Earth-based telescopes (Moon and Mars), and the two Voyager spacecraft (the four giant planets).

Each planet is unique. Similarities that would be expected if the planets had evolved from the same swirling dust cloud are seldom found. Yet most planetary studies begin by assuming that the planets evolved and are therefore similar. Typical arguments are as follows: “By studying the magnetic field (or any other feature) of Planet X, we will better understand how Earth’s magnetic field evolved. Actually, each magnetic field is surprisingly different. “By studying Earth’s sister planet, Venus, we will see how plate tectonics shaped its surface and better understand how plate tectonics works on Earth. It is now recognized that plate tectonics does not occur on Venus.*

a. “...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong. *Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters, Science, Vol.*295, 25 January 2002, p.*605.

“To sum up, I think that all suggested accounts of the origin of the Solar System are subject to serious objections. The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the system cannot exist. Harold Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History, and Physical Constitution, 6th edition (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1976), p.*387.

“But if we had a reliable theory of the origin of planets, if we knew of some mechanism consistent with the laws of physics so that we understood how planets form, then clearly we could make use of it to estimate the probability that other stars have attendant planets. However, no such theory exists yet, despite the large number of hypotheses suggested. R.*A. Lyttleton, Mysteries of the Solar System (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1968), p.*4.

“A great array of observational facts must be explained by a satisfactory theory, [on the evolution of the solar system] and the theory must be consistent with the principles of dynamics and modern physics. All of the hypotheses so far presented have failed, or remain unproved, when physical theory is properly applied. Fred L. Whipple, Earth, Moon, and Planets, 3rd edition (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1968), p.*243.

“Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the Solar System began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.* Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol.*3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p.*91.

b. “I wish it were not so, but I’m somewhat skeptical that we’re going to learn an awful lot about Earth by looking at other planetary bodies. The more that we look at the different planets, the more each one seems to be unique. *Michael Carr, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “The Solar System’s New Diversity, Science, Vol.*265, 2*September 1994, p.*1360.

“The most striking outcome of planetary exploration is the diversity of the planets. David Stevenson, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, Ibid.

“Stevenson and others are puzzling out how subtle differences in starting conditions such as distance from the sun, along with chance events like giant impacts early in the solar system history, can send planets down vastly different evolutionary paths. Kerr, Ibid.

“You put together the same basic materials and get startlingl y different results. No two [planets] are alike; it’s like a zoo. Alexander Dessler, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, Ibid., p.*1361.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Dec 24, 2014 9:12 am

Strange Planets 2

According to these evolutionary theories:

Backward-Spinning Planets. All planets should spin in the same direction, but Venus, Uranus (c), and Pluto rotate backwards (d).

Backward Orbits. * Each of the almost 200 known moons in the solar system should orbit its planet in the same direction, but more than 30 have backward orbits (e). Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions.

Tipped Orbits:

Moons. The orbit of each of these moons should lie very near the equatorial plane of the planet it orbits, but many, including the Earth’s moon, are in highly inclined orbits (f).

Planets. The orbital planes of the planets should lie in the equatorial plane of the Sun. Instead, the orbital planes of the planets typically deviate from the Sun’s equatorial plane by 7 degrees, a significant amount.

Angular Momentum. * The Sun should have about 700 times more angular momentum than all the planets combined. Instead, the planets have 50 times more angular momentum than the Sun (g).

c. Uranus’ spin axis is “tilted 97.77°. In other words, Uranus spins on its side and slightly backwards. Evolutionists have incorrectly speculated that Uranus must have been tipped over by a giant impact. However, such an impact would not have changed the orbital planes of Uranus’ larger moons, which are also “tipped over.

d. The Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2003 (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003), p.*F2.

e. Ibid.

f. Ibid.

The Moon’s orbital plane is inclined 18.5° – 28.5° to the Earth’s equatorial plane. (The Moon’s orbital plane precesses between those values over an 18.6-year cycle.) This is a considerable inclination when one recognizes that the Moon possesses 82.9% of the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system. No other planet-satellite system comes close to this amount.

Theories that for centuries claimed to show how the Moon evolved can now be rejected because of this fact alone. A more recent theory claims that a Mars-size body collided with the early Earth and kicked up debris that formed the Moon.* Ward and Canup acknowledge that:

“Recent models of this process predict that the orbit of the newly formed Moon should be in, or very near, [less than 1°] the Earth’s equatorial plane. William R. Ward and Robin M. Canup, “Origin of the Moon’s Orbital Inclination from Resonant Disk Interactions, Nature, Vol.*403, 17 February 2000, p.*741.

Nevertheless, speculative ways to circumvent this problem continue to be suggested. Even if some theory could explain the Moon’s high orbital inclination and angular momentum, other problems remain. [See “Origin of the Moon ]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 48. Origin of the Moon

g. Lyttleton, p.*16.

Fred Hoyle, The Cosmology of the Solar System (Hillside, New Jersey: Enslow Publishers, 1979), pp.*11–12.

“One of the detailed problems is then to explain how the Sun itself acquires nearly 99.9% of the mass of the solar system but only 2% of its angular momentum. Frank D. Stacey, Physics of the Earth (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969), p.*4.

Some have proposed transferring angular momentum from the sun to the planets by “magnetic linking. McCrea states:

“However, I scarcely think it has yet been established that the postulated processes would inevitably occur, or that if they did they would operate with the extreme efficiency needed in order to achieve the required distribution of angular momentum. William Hunter McCrea, “Origin of the Solar System, Symposium on the Origin of the Solar System (Paris, France: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1972), p.*8.

h. All those astronomers and planetary scientists said,

We, as planetary scientists and astronomers, do not agree with the IAU’s definition of a planet, nor will we use it.

Jenny Hogan, “Pluto: The Backlash Begins, Nature, Vol.*442, 31 August 2006, pp.*965.

A trans-Neptunian object (TNO) is any minor planet orbiting the Sun at a greater average distance than Neptune.

Contributing to the IAU’s decision to remove Pluto’s status as a planet was its small size (two-thirds the diameter of our moon) and the discovery, beginning in 1992, of thousands of trans-Neptunian objects, at least two of which are larger than Pluto. All are much farther from the Sun than Pluto.

The stated reason for the IAU’s decision to remove Pluto’s status as a planet was its small size (two-thirds the diameter of our moon) and the discovery, beginning in 1992, of thousands of trans-Neptunian objects, at least two of which are larger than Pluto but much farther from the Sun than Pluto. The unstated reason for the IAU’s decision was that Pluto, since its discovery in 1930, contradicted evolutionary theories for how planets evolve. Pluto was a thorn in the evolutionists’ side.

A simple fix for the IAU would have been to consider Pluto as both a trans-Neptunian objects and (for historical reasons) a planet. Also, an honest acknowledgement that all planets are unique would have clarified matters. Hundreds of planets discovered outside the solar system are completely different from those inside the solar system. Evolutionary processes do not explain them. [See Have Planets Been Discovered Outside the Solar System?

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Have Planets Been Discovered Outside the Solar System?

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Dec 24, 2014 1:16 pm

FG's making a huge deal in another thread over the quoting of a fictional character (not that he shouldn't) and yet continues to allow you the freedom to post this excrement. Go figure!

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Dec 24, 2014 1:52 pm

I just don't see the point of this one. Same loony author, same dippy book, but no relevance to the topic in hand.

As far as "shouldn't do" & "do" are concerned, they are worlds apart. Many things "shouldn't do" things by our understanding at the moment. If we knew everything there would be no challenge to learning. What is conveniently not mentioned about why Pluto is contraversially losing its status as a planet is that it has actually been discovered to be basically a comet caught in the Sun's orbit, rather than a planet in the true sense of the word. It is made entirely of ice. As far as planets being on a tilt, well, so are we. If we weren't we wouldn't have the different seasons.

Imagine, if you will, a tray of spinning tops. As they career around they inevitably keep bumping into each other, thus altering the angle & direction of the spin. Such is the nature of random events.

Also, regarding the direction of spin, as with being clockwise or anti-clockwise, this gives some food for thought. It changes direction of spin, but at the same time it doesn't.

Now imagine that sort of effect on the scale of planets.

It is also know that every few billion years the earth flips its polarity, where North becomes South & vice versa - much like the Tippe Top.

As for directions of orbits - that's fairly easily explained. If a body passes near a larger body with a greater mass, its trajectory is changed & it curves towards it. Depending on the angle of approach, its own mass & velocity will determine the orbit it eventually adopts. Even then these are likely to diminish their orbits & will eventually be pulled into the gravity of the body that they orbit, unless they get caught in a whiplash effect & break away from their orbit altogether.

That's the interesting thing about Chaos Theory. While it is theoretically predictable, the intricacies are so complex that it is beyond our capability to do so. Therefore we can observe what something dow & understand why it does it, but can't tell what it'll do next.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Dec 25, 2014 7:23 am

Pahu;1470088 wrote:

Strange Planets 2

According to these evolutionary theories:

Backward-Spinning Planets. All planets should spin in the same direction, but Venus, Uranus (c), and Pluto rotate backwards (d).

Backward Orbits. ï¿½* Each of the almost 200 known moons in the solar system should orbit its planet in the same direction, but more than 30 have backward orbits (e). Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions.

Tipped Orbits:

Moons. The orbit of each of these moons should lie very near the equatorial plane of the planet it orbits, but many, including the Earth’s moon, are in highly inclined orbits (f).

Planets. The orbital planes of the planets should lie in the equatorial plane of the Sun. Instead, the orbital planes of the planets typically deviate from the Sun’s equatorial plane by 7 degrees, a significant amount.

Angular Momentum. ï¿½* The Sun should have about 700 times more angular momentum than all the planets combined. Instead, the planets have 50 times more angular momentum than the Sun (g).

c. Uranus’ spin axis is “tilted 97.77°. In other words, Uranus spins on its side and slightly backwards. Evolutionists have incorrectly speculated that Uranus must have been tipped over by a giant impact. However, such an impact would not have changed the orbital planes of Uranus’ larger moons, which are also “tipped over.

d. The Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2003 (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003), p.ï¿½*F2.

e. Ibid.

f. Ibid.

The Moon’s orbital plane is inclined 18.5° – 28.5° to the Earth’s equatorial plane. (The Moon’s orbital plane precesses between those values over an 18.6-year cycle.) This is a considerable inclination when one recognizes that the Moon possesses 82.9% of the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system. No other planet-satellite system comes close to this amount.

Theories that for centuries claimed to show how the Moon evolved can now be rejected because of this fact alone. A more recent theory claims that a Mars-size body collided with the early Earth and kicked up debris that formed the Moon.ï¿½* Ward and Canup acknowledge that:

“Recent models of this process predict that the orbit of the newly formed Moon should be in, or very near, [less than 1°] the Earth’s equatorial plane. William R. Ward and Robin M. Canup, “Origin of the Moon’s Orbital Inclination from Resonant Disk Interactions, Nature, Vol.ï¿½*403, 17 February 2000, p.ï¿½*741.

Nevertheless, speculative ways to circumvent this problem continue to be suggested. Even if some theory could explain the Moon’s high orbital inclination and angular momentum, other problems remain. [See “Origin of the Moon ]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 48.** Origin of the Moon

g. Lyttleton, p.ï¿½*16.

Fred Hoyle, The Cosmology of the Solar System (Hillside, New Jersey: Enslow Publishers, 1979), pp.ï¿½*11–12.

“One of the detailed problems is then to explain how the Sun itself acquires nearly 99.9% of the mass of the solar system but only 2% of its angular momentum. Frank D. Stacey, Physics of the Earth (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969), p.ï¿½*4.

Some have proposed transferring angular momentum from the sun to the planets by “magnetic linking. McCrea states:

“However, I scarcely think it has yet been established that the postulated processes would inevitably occur, or that if they did they would operate with the extreme efficiency needed in order to achieve the required distribution of angular momentum. William Hunter McCrea, “Origin of the Solar System, Symposium on the Origin of the Solar System (Paris, France: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1972), p.ï¿½*8.

h. All those astronomers and planetary scientists said,

We, as planetary scientists and astronomers, do not agree with the IAU’s definition of a planet, nor will we use it.

Jenny Hogan, “Pluto: The Backlash Begins, Nature, Vol.ï¿½*442, 31 August 2006, pp.ï¿½*965.

A trans-Neptunian object (TNO) is any minor planet orbiting the Sun at a greater average distance than Neptune.

Contributing to the IAU’s decision to remove Pluto’s status as a planet was its small size (two-thirds the diameter of our moon) and the discovery, beginning in 1992, of thousands of trans-Neptunian objects, at least two of which are larger than Pluto. All are much farther from the Sun than Pluto.

The stated reason for the IAU’s decision to remove Pluto’s status as a planet was its small size (two-thirds the diameter of our moon) and the discovery, beginning in 1992, of thousands of trans-Neptunian objects, at least two of which are larger than Pluto but much farther from the Sun than Pluto. The unstated reason for the IAU’s decision was that Pluto, since its discovery in 1930, contradicted evolutionary theories for how planets evolve. Pluto was a thorn in the evolutionists’ side.

A simple fix for the IAU would have been to consider Pluto as both a trans-Neptunian objects and (for historical reasons) a planet. Also, an honest acknowledgement that all planets are unique would have clarified matters. Hundreds of planets discovered outside the solar system are completely different from those inside the solar system. Evolutionary processes do not explain them. [See Have Planets Been Discovered Outside the Solar System?

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Have Planets Been Discovered Outside the Solar System?

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

This one is really reaching. Your "evolutionists" have no more expertise in planetary physics than do your Creationists friends. No one in the last couple of hundred years has ever stated that all the planets and moons should orbit or rotate in the same direction, except, perhaps Mr Brown.

Will Mr Brown next expound on variations of the Coriolis effect?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Dec 25, 2014 8:21 am

LarsMac;1470163 wrote:

Will Mr Brown next expound on variations of the Coriolis effect?
OMG - Don't start him on that!!

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 9:50 am

Strange Planets 3

Is Pluto a Planet?

In 2006, after years of internal debate, 4% of the members of the International Astronomical Union (IAU)—those meeting in Prague—to no longer call Pluto a planet. Instead, they said voted Pluto is a trans-neptunian object (h).

The IAU had no jurisdiction to change the definition of “planet for the rest of the world. It is fine for an organization to tell others what it considers a word to mean, but common usage is the basis for definitions. Our language is filled with scientific words whose meanings have changed based on new discoveries and broader understandings. Few meanings have changed based on an organization’s vote.

Since Pluto’s discovery 76 years earlier, Pluto has been a thorn in the side of astronomers trying to explain how planets evolve (i), because so many characteristics of Pluto do not fit into evolutionary scenarios. No longer calling Pluto a planet (even though it is spherical, has three known moons, and orbits the Sun in the right direction) may reduce those man-made problems, but now calls attention to the more difficult question of how a thousand trans-neptunian objects evolved.

In 1930, after astronomers had been searching for a suspected ninth planet for 25 years, a tenacious farm boy from Kansas, Clyde W. Tombaugh (1906–1997), discovered Pluto at Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona. He later became one of my favorite professors. Going to his backyard to use his handmade 9-inch telescope was memorable. Professor Tombaugh was a warm, unpretentious man with the biggest smile you have ever seen. However, in class, he sometimes became irate at astronomers who made pronouncements but seldom touched a telescope.

Classification can be a useful tool, but at other times it leads to endless arguments, because the world (or, in this case, the solar system) is usually more complicated than theories imply. We can call Pluto anything we wish, but tens of thousands of books and hundreds of millions of students have called Pluto a planet.

What is a planet? Its original meaning was “wandering star. I will always associate Pluto with Clyde Tombaugh and the worldwide excitement of finally discovering the ninth planet. For historical reasons, if nothing else, I suspect that millions of others will continue to call Pluto a planet as well as a trans-neptunian object.

Semantics aside, the scientific question remains: how could Pluto evolve?

Figure*23: Saturn and Six of Its Moons. Saturn has 60 known moons. One of them, named Phoebe, has an orbit almost perpendicular to Saturn’s equator. This is difficult for evolutionist astronomers to explain.

h. All those astronomers and planetary scientists said,

We, as planetary scientists and astronomers, do not agree with the IAU’s definition of a planet, nor will we use it. Jenny Hogan, “Pluto: The Backlash Begins, Nature, Vol.*442, 31 August 2006, pp.*965.

A trans-Neptunian object (TNO) is any minor planet orbiting the Sun at a greater average distance than Neptune.

Contributing to the IAU’s decision to remove Pluto’s status as a planet was its small size (two-thirds the diameter of our moon) and the discovery, beginning in 1992, of thousands of trans-Neptunian objects, at least two of which are larger than Pluto. All are much farther from the Sun than Pluto.

The stated reason for the IAU’s decision to remove Pluto’s status as a planet was its small size (two-thirds the diameter of our moon) and the discovery, beginning in 1992, of thousands of trans-Neptunian objects, at least two of which are larger than Pluto but much farther from the Sun than Pluto. The unstated reason for the IAU’s decision was that Pluto, since its discovery in 1930, contradicted evolutionary theories for how planets evolve. Pluto was a thorn in the evolutionists’ side.

A simple fix for the IAU would have been to consider Pluto as both a trans-Neptunian objects and (for historical reasons) a planet. Also, an honest acknowledgement that all planets are unique would have clarified matters. Hundreds of planets discovered outside the solar system are completely different from those inside the solar system. Evolutionary processes do not explain them. [See “Have Planets Been Discovered Outside the Solar System? ]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Have Planets Been Discovered Outside the Solar System?

For more information on the battles among astronomers concerning Pluto’s planetary status, see Laurence A. Marschall and Stephen P. Maran, Pluto Confidential (Dallas, Texas: Benbella Books, Inc., 2009). Thousands of professional astronomers will not abide by the IAU’s stealthy vote and will continue to consider Pluto a planet.

i. “Pluto has long been a misfit in the prevailing theories of the solar system’s origin: it is thousands of times less massive than the four gas-giant outer planets, and its orbit is very different from the well-separated, nearly circular and co-planar orbits of the eight other major planets. Pluto’s is eccentric: during one complete revolution, the planet’s distance from the sun varies from 29.7 to 49.5 astronomical units [AU] .... Pluto also travels 8 AU above and 13 AU below the mean plane of the other planets’ orbits. Renu Malhotra, “Migrating Planets, Scientific American, Vol*281, September 1999, p.*59.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:56 am

You obviously didn't take a blind bit of notice of what I just posted did you? The decision to decategorise Pluto as a planet has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. Planets do not evolve. They are non generational they do not live or reproduce. They may divide upon impact, but just because you break a rock into 2 with a hammer doesn't mean the rock has reproduced or evolved into 2 smaller rocks. It is just the same, broken rock.

Pluto is a block of ice. It is spherical because nature is lazy & spherical is the easiest form to assume. Just as any physical object, however, whether it be ice or rock, it has mass. Therefore, anything with mass has a proportionate amount of gravity. The more mass it has, the greater the gravitational field. Hailstones are made of ice. Hailstones have mass & therefore have their own degree of gravity albeit minute & short lived. However, regardless of the size of the object, if the is mass & gravity, then a smaller object can be affected by the mass / gravity of the larger object & may be pulled into its orbit by the simple laws of physics.

Haley's Comet orbits the Sun. That doesn't make it a planet. What classes it as a comet rather than a planet is that is merely made up of ice - just as Pluto is. Technically, Pluto is closer to being a comet than a planet. NOTHING whatsoever to do with evolution.

Besides, Pluto isn't even real - he's just Mickey Mouse's pet dog.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:22 am

Earth: The Water Planet 1

The amount of water on Earth greatly exceeds that known on or within any other planet in the solar system. Liquid water, which is essential for life to survive, has unique and amazing properties; it covers 70% of Earth’s surface. Where did all Earth’s water come from?

If the Earth and solar system evolved from a swirling cloud of dust and gas, almost no water would reside near Earth—or within 5 astronomical units (AU) from the Sun. (1 AU is the average Earth-Sun distance.)Any water (liquid or ice) that close to the Sun would vaporize and be blown by solar wind to the outer reaches of the solar system (a), as we see happening with water vapor in the tails of comets.

a. “Earth has substantially more water than scientists would expect to find at a mere 93 million miles from the sun. Ben Harder, “Water for the Rock: Did Earth’s Oceans Come from the Heavens? Science News, Vol. 161, 23 March 2002, p. 184.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:23 am

What, pray tell, does any of that have to do with evolution?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:36 am

LarsMac;1470964 wrote: What, pray tell, does any of that have to do with evolution?
Nothing at all - you don't expect him to read, let alone understand anything of the bollox he copies & pastes / spams do you?

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:55 am

FourPart;1470965 wrote: Nothing at all - you don't expect him to read, let alone understand anything of the bollox he copies & pastes / spams do you?

Well, actually, ...

Yes.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:51 am

Molten Earth? 1

For more than two centuries, textbooks have taught that the early Earth was molten for 500,000,000 years, because it formed by meteoritic bombardment (a). If so, the heat released by the impacts would have melted the entire Earth many times over (b). Had Earth ever been molten, dense, nonreactive chemical elements such as gold would have sunk to Earth’s core. Gold is 70% denser than lead, yet is found at the Earth’s surface (c).

a. “The textbook view that the earth spent its first half a billion years drenched in magma could be wrong. John W. Valley, “A Cool Early Earth? Scientific American, Vol.*294, October 2005, p.*59.

b. “The kinetic energy (~5*x*10^38*ergs) released in the largest impacts (1.5*x*10^27*g at *9 km/sec) would be several times greater than that required to melt the entire Earth. George W. Wetherill, “Occurrence of Giant Impacts during the Growth of the Terrestrial Planets, Science, Vol.*228, 17*May 1985, p.*879.

c. If gold were found only near volcanoes, then one might claim that gold was brought up to the Earth’s surface by volcanoes.* However, gold is seldom found near volcanoes.

Suppose that extremely hot water (932°F or 500°C) was once below earth’s surface. Gold in high concentrations would go into solution. If the solution escaped to the Earth’s surface, most gold would precipitate as the water’s pressure and temperature dropped. If this happened, about 250 cubic miles of water must have burst forth to account for the gold found in just one gold mining region in Canada. [See Robert Kerrich, “Nature’s Gold Factory, Science, Vol.*284, 25 June 1999, pp.*2101–2102.]* If these ideal pressure-temperature conditions did not exist, even more water must come up faster to account for the Earth’s gold deposits. These are hardly the slow processes that evolutionists visualize. On pages 111–147 and 451–457, you will see how, why, and when vast amounts of hot water burst up through faults.

About 40% of all gold mined in the world is from the Witwatersrand Basin in South Africa. This gold, deposited in compressional fractures within the basin, precipitated from water whose temperature exceeded 300°C. [See A. C. Barnicoat et al., “Hydrothermal Gold Mineralization in the Witwatersrand Basin, Nature, Vol.*386, 24*April 1997, pp.*820–824.]

Robert R. Loucks and John A. Mavrogenes, “Gold Solubility in Supercritical Hydrothermal Brines Measured in Synthetic Fluid Inclusions, Science, Vol.*284, 25*June 1999, pp.*2159–2163.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:03 pm

Pahu;1472114 wrote:

Molten Earth? 1

For more than two centuries, textbooks have taught that the early Earth was molten for 500,000,000 years, because it formed by meteoritic bombardment (a). If so, the heat released by the impacts would have melted the entire Earth many times over (b). Had Earth ever been molten, dense, nonreactive chemical elements such as gold would have sunk to Earth’s core. Gold is 70% denser than lead, yet is found at the Earth’s surface (c).

a. “The textbook view that the earth spent its first half a billion years drenched in magma could be wrong. John W. Valley, “A Cool Early Earth? Scientific American, Vol.ï¿½*294, October 2005, p.ï¿½*59.

b. “The kinetic energy (~5ï¿½*xï¿½*10^38ï¿½*ergs) released in the largest impacts (1.5ï¿½*xï¿½*10^27ï¿½*g at ï¿½*9 km/sec) would be several times greater than that required to melt the entire Earth. George W. Wetherill, “Occurrence of Giant Impacts during the Growth of the Terrestrial Planets, Science, Vol.ï¿½*228, 17ï¿½*May 1985, p.ï¿½*879.

c. If gold were found only near volcanoes, then one might claim that gold was brought up to the Earth’s surface by volcanoes.ï¿½* However, gold is seldom found near volcanoes.

Suppose that extremely hot water (932°F or 500°C) was once below earth’s surface. Gold in high concentrations would go into solution. If the solution escaped to the Earth’s surface, most gold would precipitate as the water’s pressure and temperature dropped. If this happened, about 250 cubic miles of water must have burst forth to account for the gold found in just one gold mining region in Canada. [See Robert Kerrich, “Nature’s Gold Factory, Science, Vol.ï¿½*284, 25 June 1999, pp.ï¿½*2101–2102.]ï¿½* If these ideal pressure-temperature conditions did not exist, even more water must come up faster to account for the Earth’s gold deposits. These are hardly the slow processes that evolutionists visualize. On pages 111–147 and 451–457, you will see how, why, and when vast amounts of hot water burst up through faults.

About 40% of all gold mined in the world is from the Witwatersrand Basin in South Africa. This gold, deposited in compressional fractures within the basin, precipitated from water whose temperature exceeded 300°C. [See A. C. Barnicoat et al., “Hydrothermal Gold Mineralization in the Witwatersrand Basin, Nature, Vol.ï¿½*386, 24ï¿½*April 1997, pp.ï¿½*820–824.]

Robert R. Loucks and John A. Mavrogenes, “Gold Solubility in Supercritical Hydrothermal Brines Measured in Synthetic Fluid Inclusions, Science, Vol.ï¿½*284, 25ï¿½*June 1999, pp.ï¿½*2159–2163.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Actually, most, if not all the gold found has been in areas where there is significant evidence of previous volcanic activity.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:35 pm

Pahu;1472114 wrote:

Molten Earth? 1

For more than two centuries, textbooks have taught that the early Earth was molten for 500,000,000 years, because it formed by meteoritic bombardment (a). If so, the heat released by the impacts would have melted the entire Earth many times over

I was under the impression that being molten was the result of having melted. So where is the problem here?

You need to understand more about mass, gravity & the effect of Thermodynamics. Take a Lava Lamp for instance. When turned off the heavier elements sink to the bottom. When turned on they float to the top.

Hydrogen & Helium are lighter than air, so why is the upper atmosphere not composed entirely of these gases? The same applies to Nitrogen & CO2 being far heavier than Oxygen, so why do we not all suffocate?

Anything that has mass forms its own gravitational field. The greater the mass, the greater the gravitational field. So when something meets with an equal mass / gravitational field (although not necessarily the same volume) the effects either cancel each other out or they combine. Gold may be dense, but a piece of gold leaf can float on the surface tension of water. When panning for gold, it's the nuggets that rise to the surface. There is nothing supernatural about any of this. The same simple physics have been used for thousands of years in the smelting of metals of all kinds.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 3:20 pm

FourPart;1472124 wrote: I was under the impression that being molten was the result of having melted. So where is the problem here?

You need to understand more about mass, gravity & the effect of Thermodynamics. Take a Lava Lamp for instance. When turned off the heavier elements sink to the bottom. When turned on they float to the top.

Hydrogen & Helium are lighter than air, so why is the upper atmosphere not composed entirely of these gases? The same applies to Nitrogen & CO2 being far heavier than Oxygen, so why do we not all suffocate?

Anything that has mass forms its own gravitational field. The greater the mass, the greater the gravitational field. So when something meets with an equal mass / gravitational field (although not necessarily the same volume) the effects either cancel each other out or they combine. Gold may be dense, but a piece of gold leaf can float on the surface tension of water. When panning for gold, it's the nuggets that rise to the surface. There is nothing supernatural about any of this. The same simple physics have been used for thousands of years in the smelting of metals of all kinds.

Sorry, but the Gold does not rise to the surface when panning. The density of the Gold is what makes panning work. The gold particles stay in the bottom of the pan as the lighter material gets flushed out.

The Gold gets into the river beds and such as erosion flushes out the rock structures in which the gold id embedded.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Jan 22, 2015 2:11 am

Fair enough. But erosion is another clue as to how Gold reaches the surface. As has ben previously mentioned in this thread, mountains grow, forced up by geological tectonics (as was the reason for sea fossils on the top of them). Therefore, seam of Gold would also be pushed up with them, and in time eroded downstream to subsequent regions. After all, it does seem that most Gold is found in such regions "There's Gold In Them Thar HILLS".

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:39 am

FourPart;1472222 wrote: Fair enough. But erosion is another clue as to how Gold reaches the surface. As has ben previously mentioned in this thread, mountains grow, forced up by geological tectonics (as was the reason for sea fossils on the top of them). Therefore, seam of Gold would also be pushed up with them, and in time eroded downstream to subsequent regions. After all, it does seem that most Gold is found in such regions "There's Gold In Them Thar HILLS".

Exactly.

In the early days panning was the way to detect gold in an area, and when they found it in a stream, they would follow the stream up hill until they found the vein.

I have done a bit of panning, myself, and my Mother-in-law was the first woman to work in the Cripple Creek area mines, when she was young.

Yes, most of the gold has been a result of Tectonic and Volcanic activity.

Mr Brown stepped in it this time.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Jan 22, 2015 4:42 pm

LarsMac;1472228 wrote: Mr Brown stepped in it this time.
When has he not?

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:40 am

FourPart;1472299 wrote: When has he not?

Well, this one was such a brilliantly glaring boo-boo. Anyone who has studied even the basics of geology or chemistry can see the problem.

A lot of the stuff is just copying statements made from people who may, or may not have a science background, saying things that may, or may not be meaningful within some context, or another.

Gobbledegook, I think is the term that applies to all of that.

THIS time it is an outright falsehood.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 8:25 am

Do you even know who most of those people are?

I doubt it.

And please, by all means show their work where they confirm Mr Brown's conclusions.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 9:34 am

LarsMac;1472393 wrote: Do you even know who most of those people are?

I doubt it.

And please, by all means show their work where they confirm Mr Brown's conclusions.

You will find their work where they confirm Mr Brown's conclusions here: The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 9:50 am

The task is yours to support your argument.

At least show me where David Stevenson confirmed Brown's conclusions on Evolution.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 10:07 am

LarsMac;1472426 wrote: The task is yours to support your argument.

At least show me where David Stevenson confirmed Brown's conclusions on Evolution.

Go to The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory. Then go to index and go to David Stevenson.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 10:09 am

Pahu;1472431 wrote: Go to The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory. Then go to index and go to David Stevenson.

As I said before, you made the statement. The task is yours to do prove your point

Why should I do your work for you?

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 10:16 am

LarsMac;1472433 wrote: As I said before, you made the statement. The task is yours to do prove your point

Why should I do your work for you?

Why should I do your work for you? If you are really interested in the answer you will follow my instructions. Otherwise, admit you are not really interested in the answer.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 11:11 am

Pahu;1472437 wrote: Why should I do your work for you? If you are really interested in the answer you will follow my instructions. Otherwise, admit you are not really interested in the answer.

I am interested in how you defend your answers.

Read that as, I call you to defend what you say.

I read Brown book years ago.

I will tell you that nothing David Stevenson is quoted as saying in the book confirms any conclusion that Mr Brown has claimed.

your pattern of taking quotes, mostly unrelated to the subject, completely out of context, and trying to use them to support your preposterous claims has nothing to do with science.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Jan 24, 2015 6:19 am

LarsMac;1472464 wrote: your pattern of taking quotes, mostly unrelated to the subject, completely out of context, and trying to use them to support your preposterous claims has nothing to do with science.

The very use of the word "Creation" in this context has nothing to do with science. Less than that - it's a total contradiction.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 9:08 am

Molten Earth? 2

Radioactive dating of certain zircon minerals also contradicts a molten Earth. Trace elements within those zircons show that the zircons formed on a cold Earth (less than 212°F) (d). However, based on radioactive dating, those zircons formed on an extremely young Earth, when, according to evolutionists, it should have been molten (exceeding 1,800°F)—an obvious contradiction. Either the molten Earth idea or the radioactive dating method must be wrong; perhaps both are wrong.

Meteorites contain much more of the element xenon than Earth’s surface rocks, relative to other noble (inert) gases such as helium, neon, and argon. Had Earth formed by meteoritic bombardment, Earth’s surface rocks would have a different composition, and our atmosphere would contain up to ten times more xenon than it has (e). If Earth did not evolve by meteoritic bombardment, it may have begun as one large body.

d. John W. Valley, “A Cool Early Earth? Scientific American, Vol.*294, October 2005, pp.*58–65.

e. “Meteorites, he notes, contain 10 times as much xenon, relative to other noble gasses, than occurs in Earth’s atmosphere. In addition, the relative abundance of xenon isotopes found in meteorites doesn’t jibe with the pattern found on Earth. If meteorites did deliver most of the water to our planet, they also would have provided xenon, and our atmosphere would have to have a very different composition, Owen maintains. Ron Cowen, “Found: Primordial Water, Science News, Vol.*156, 30*October 1999, p.*285.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:07 am

So first of all Dolt Brown refers to molten rock coming from the centre of the earth via volcanoes in the form of magma, then he claims that the centre of the earth is not molten at all.

Yep! Seems to be standing by his usual rules of consistency.

Put quite simply, the earth was totally molten, just as many planets still are. Then, over the Millenia it cooled, starting from the outer shell, inwards, to where the highest degree of insulation is. It's like ice forming on a pond. It doesn't start freezing from the bottom - it freezes from the top. Just because the earth continues to be bombarded by other extraterrestrial objects doesn't mean, by any means that that will heat it up. On the contrary, it has been demonstrated that the Ice Age that killed of the Dinosaurs was due to the impact of an asteroid forming a dust cloud that caused a Nuclear Winter.

Are you sure that "In The Beginning" is even MEANT to be taken seriously & not intended as a Monty Python-esque parody on reality?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:44 am

I thought I'd do a little research on this idiot, Walt Brown. It makes for some very interesting reading.

Pahu frequently cites links to the Center for Scientific Creation as an independant source of 'expert scientists' who totally support his claims. Who do you think is the founder & current director of the Center for Scientific Creation. Surprise, surprise - Walt Brown. Very independant.

Walt Brown (creationist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wherever you look on Google about Walt Brown you find references to his wildly unfounded claims & his habit of making selective quotes & using them out of context, along with blatant mis-quotes. Furthermore, when he is quoted elsewhere contradicting himself again, he denies the quotes, despite citations being provided. He frequently issues challenges to his opposers to debate certain issues, but then when they take up the gauntlet & accept the challenges he simply backs down with some excuse or another & refuses to debate.

A Further Examination of the Research of Walter Brown | NCSE

Brown is nothing but a faker & a fantacist. Basically a simple snake oil merchant who has no credibility whatsoever, neither in the Scientific world, nor, which is funnier still, in his own Creationist world.

Such a man is Pahu's role model.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 12:18 pm

FourPart;1473114 wrote: I thought I'd do a little research on this idiot, Walt Brown. It makes for some very interesting reading.

Pahu frequently cites links to the Center for Scientific Creation as an independant source of 'expert scientists' who totally support his claims. Who do you think is the founder & current director of the Center for Scientific Creation. Surprise, surprise - Walt Brown. Very independant.

Walt Brown (creationist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wherever you look on Google about Walt Brown you find references to his wildly unfounded claims & his habit of making selective quotes & using them out of context, along with blatant mis-quotes. Furthermore, when he is quoted elsewhere contradicting himself again, he denies the quotes, despite citations being provided. He frequently issues challenges to his opposers to debate certain issues, but then when they take up the gauntlet & accept the challenges he simply backs down with some excuse or another & refuses to debate.

A Further Examination of the Research of Walter Brown | NCSE

Brown is nothing but a faker & a fantacist. Basically a simple snake oil merchant who has no credibility whatsoever, neither in the Scientific world, nor, which is funnier still, in his own Creationist world.

Such a man is Pahu's role model.
it's all been said very early on. As much as I love the brothers who own this site, I really do wish they'd lock this thread up somewhere

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 12:37 pm

Pahu;1473121 wrote: If what you say is true, why do scientists confirm Brown's 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.ï¿½*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.ï¿½*J.ï¿½*E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J.ï¿½*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, RaÃºl 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, 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

You keep bringing this up, but you never show where any of these "Scientists" actually "Confirm Brown's conclusions"

I took it upon myself, after your refusal to support your argument to look up what some of them said, and find nothing to that actually supports Brown.

Sorry, no science here.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:18 pm

Pahu;1473121 wrote: If what you say is true, why do scientists confirm Brown's 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.ï¿½*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.ï¿½*J.ï¿½*E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J.ï¿½*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, RaÃºl 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, 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
A review isn't necessarily positive.

I've done Googling online for affirmation of these wild claims & the only true scientists who mention him at all denounce him as a charlaton. I suppose the lists you provide are also taken from the Brown Book of Fairy Tales?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:04 pm

Pahu has taken a drumming from all over the internet since he flooded it with his nonsense and this may be the only site still tolerating him.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:24 pm

Ahso!;1473164 wrote: Pahu has taken a drumming from all over the internet since he flooded it with his nonsense and this may be the only site still tolerating him.

What nonsense?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:26 pm

Pahu;1473170 wrote: What nonsense?How many site have you either been banned from or have had your threads locked up on? Be honest now. You are a christian.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:34 pm

Ahso!;1473171 wrote: How many site have you either been banned from or have had your threads locked up on? Be honest now. You are a christian.

Quite a few, not because my messages are untrue but because they are true and they did not want to be exposed to the truth. But you did not answer my question: What nonsense?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:47 pm

Pahu;1473173 wrote: Quite a few, not because my messages are untrue but because they are true and they did not want to be exposed to the truth. But you did not answer my question: What nonsense?You're as delusional about why you've been kick off sites as you are about the "nonsense" you post.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:49 pm

You don't get banned from forums for speaking the truth. Nor do you (usually) get banned for discussing contraversial matters. But things that are common causes for being banned are flooding (i.e. constantly copying & pasting the same old crap) & spamming (i.e. constantly advertising the same book), both of which are a breach of forum rules, both here & pretty much everywhere else on the net. You never quantify you pastings with reasonable arguments, you just continue to paste more & more, continuing to spam the same old book which, no matter how much you choose to spam it, is still, and always will be, utter nonsense. THAT'S what nonsense.

You have constantly made claim to a list of names who you claim to support your hero's wild claims, although I suspect that this list is also a claim from this book of nonsense, yet despite frequent challenges to quantify the claims you have constantly failed to do so. If they have made these affirmations in such noted publications, then how come no-one can find any trace of them having said anything in Brown's favour. Quite simply because it's all in Brown's imagination. He sees someone state that science has not yet found a reason for something or another (which is what science is all about - always searching for understanding & proof - never assuming anything), and immediately interprets that admission of ignorance as being a statement in support of his lunatic beliefs. After all, remember "The Beginning Of Wisdom Starts By Saying I Do Not Know" - that doesn't mean that because I don't know that Dolt Brown's fantasy dreamworld is the answer.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:45 pm

If someone thinks that this stuff is in violation of Forum Rules, they should report it, and let Admin review and decide.

As silly as it is, I don't see any rules that justify taking action. Pahu sits over here and cranks out his drivel and most people ignore him.

Seems as equitable an arrangement as any.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:29 am

Ahso!;1473174 wrote: You're as delusional about why you've been kick off sites as you are about the "nonsense" you post.

Your inability to tell us what nonsense you are referring to indicates you are just repeating mindless evidence free speculation.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:40 am

FourPart;1473175 wrote: You don't get banned from forums for speaking the truth.

The information in Brown's book is the truth.

You never quantify you pastings with reasonable arguments, you just continue to paste more & more, continuing to spam the same old book which, no matter how much you choose to spam it, is still, and always will be, utter nonsense. THAT'S what nonsense.

The book itself presents reasonable arguments supporting the information. Tell us what information from the book is utter nonsense.

You have constantly made claim to a list of names who you claim to support your hero's wild claims, although I suspect that this list is also a claim from this book of nonsense, yet despite frequent challenges to quantify the claims you have constantly failed to do so. If they have made these affirmations in such noted publications, then how come no-one can find any trace of them having said anything in Brown's favour. Quite simply because it's all in Brown's imagination.

Nonsense! All the scientists on that list confirm Brown's conclusions. You can find those names in the index.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:14 am

Pahu;1473204 wrote: The information in Brown's book is the truth.

The book itself presents reasonable arguments supporting the information. Tell us what information from the book is utter nonsense.

Nonsense! All the scientists on that list confirm Brown's conclusions. You can find those names in the index.

Nonsense. Yup. That pretty well sums up the book, and your claims.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 10:59 am

So, I did look through your list of scientists who supposedly have confirmed Browns conclusions.

I found Steven W Hawking in the list.

Let's see what Dr Hawking may have offered in confirmation of Brown's conclusions.

From the book, "A Brief History of Time", Hawking is quoted:

So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.

Ah! so Hawking confirms a Creator?

Let us read that statement in context, shall we?

...So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?

Hardly the confirmation Mr Brown claims, then, is it?

Shall I continue? I can make a goal of following up on one such quote each week, and see where that takes us.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 2:33 pm

LarsMac;1473207 wrote: So, I did look through your list of scientists who supposedly have confirmed Browns conclusions.

I found Steven W Hawking in the list.

Let's see what Dr Hawking may have offered in confirmation of Brown's conclusions.

From the book, "A Brief History of Time", Hawking is quoted:

So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.

Ah! so Hawking confirms a Creator?

Let us read that statement in context, shall we?

...So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?

Hardly the confirmation Mr Brown claims, then, is it?

In context, Brown was taking about a beginning of the universe requiring a creator, which Hawking confirmed. Here is his quote:

A Beginning

Heat always flows from a hot body to a cold body. If the universe were infinitely old—has always been here—everything would have the same temperature. Because temperatures vary, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning. (A beginning suggests a Creator.)

The rest of Hawking's quote is evidence free speculation. Let's look a little closer at the facts. Before the beginning of the universe it did not exist and there was nothing. From nothing the universe came into existence, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe is supernatural.

Shall I continue? I can make a goal of following up on one such quote each week, and see where that takes us.

By all means continue.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:17 pm

I see, so anything any scientist says that cannot be considered to agree with, or confirm Brown's conclusion is "evidence-free Speculation" ?

How very convenient for you.

I suggest that it is Mr Brown who dances with Evidence-free speculation, not Dr Hawking.

There is no evidence that the universe had a beginning. That is speculation. Therefore the idea that it must have had a creator to have a beginning is equally evidence-free.

And to be clear, I am not even denying the possibility of a creator. I am simply challenging your (Mr Brown's) "Young Earth" version of things.

And still challenging you to actually show the science that supports his claims.