ForumGarden

By the way, since first on your list is Scott Tremaine.

I found this while researching his work.

It is very interesting.

Watch, and let's talk about it.

And some more science.

Pahu;1473204 wrote: Nonsense! All the scientists on that list confirm Brown's conclusions. You can find those names in the index.


As I suspected a list of names from the book itself with no basis to the claims that any of them support his wild claims in any way whatsoever. He just lists the names with no quantification to where they supposedly make their supporting statements. I could just as easily say that Steven Hawking & Albert Einstein both support my claim of the existence of Fluffy Flying Pink Elephants. Now, you show me proof that they never supported my claim. You can't, can you. If it were true that these reputable scientists give support, then it would most sense to cite just where they said it as it might give a microspoic margin of credibility to the otherwise contemptuous ravings of a mad man.

So, once again, I challenge you to show exactly where they have said such things AND I DON'T MEAN MORE PASTED QUOTES FROM BROWN'S BOOK OF NONSENSE. All they serve to do is to prove your inability to answer the challenge & supports what is patently obvious to everyone else who has a modicum of intelligence that the books is just a load of unfounded lies based on nothing more than imagination.

LarsMac;1473221 wrote: 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.


Not so, but when a scientist like Hawking strays from science and inserts unscientific evidence free speculation, then he qualifies for that phrase.

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.


The scientific evidence indicates the universe had a beginning. What Brown said about that is scientifically valid. Let me repeat:

"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.)"

What do you find unscientific about that statement? On the other hand, Hawking's statement is totally evidence free speculation:

"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?"

Notice how he uses an "if" statement to bolster his need to deny the existence of God.

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning�*and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence.�* Therefore, something brought it into existence.�*What brought the universe into existence?�* It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist.�* Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.

Originally Posted by Pahu:

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

FourPart;1473232 wrote: As I suspected a list of names from the book itself with no basis to the claims that any of them support his wild claims in any way whatsoever. He just lists the names with no quantification to where they supposedly make their supporting statements.


You looked up Hawking's quote and I showed you that the quote accurately applied to the context of Brown's statement. If you look up the other scientist on that list you will find the same.

I could just as easily say that Steven Hawking & Albert Einstein both support my claim of the existence of Fluffy Flying Pink Elephants. Now, you show me proof that they never supported my claim. You can't, can you. If it were true that these reputable scientists give support, then it would most sense to cite just where they said it as it might give a microspoic margin of credibility to the otherwise contemptuous ravings of a mad man.


The burden of proof is on you. Show me where they both, or even one, support your claim of the existence of Fluffy Flying Pink Elephants. If you can't, we can safely assume they never supported your claim, can't we?

So, once again, I challenge you to show exactly where they have said such things AND I DON'T MEAN MORE PASTED QUOTES FROM BROWN'S BOOK OF NONSENSE. All they serve to do is to prove your inability to answer the challenge & supports what is patently obvious to everyone else who has a modicum of intelligence that the books is just a load of unfounded lies based on nothing more than imagination.


Once again, since the quotes are found in Brown's book, I would have to use his book to prove they are relevant to the context, wouldn't I?

Let me challenge you to show that Brown's book is the product of his imagination and not scientifically valid and therefor "nonsense."

Pahu;1473269 wrote: Not so, but when a scientist like Hawking strays from science and inserts unscientific evidence free speculation, then he qualifies for that phrase.





The scientific evidence indicates the universe had a beginning. What Brown said about that is scientifically valid. Let me repeat:

"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.)"

What do you find unscientific about that statement? On the other hand, Hawking's statement is totally evidence free speculation:

"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?"

Notice how he uses an "if" statement to bolster his need to deny the existence of God.

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning�*and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence.�* Therefore, something brought it into existence.�*What brought the universe into existence?�* It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist.�* Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.


Sorry, but that is pure speculation. And Evidence-free, at that.

LarsMac;1473280 wrote: Sorry, but that is pure speculation. And Evidence-free, at that.


Are you claiming that heat does not always flows from a hot body to a cold body?

Are you claiming that if the universe were infinitely old—has always been here—everything would not have the same temperature?

In what way are those statement pure speculation. What is speculative about the rest of my statement?

Pahu;1473274 wrote: Originally Posted by Pahu:

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


That is my point. The names are in his book, without providing any evidence to the claim that they've even heard of him, let alone supported him. I could create a similar lists of names from Who's Who to put in my next publication of the plight of the Fluffy Pink Flying Elephants. There has been no quantification for his claims.

You looked up Hawking's quote and I showed you that the quote accurately applied to the context of Brown's statement. If you look up the other scientist on that list you will find the same.


Actually, it was Lars that looked it up (get your facts right), and he proved that the quote used was a selective part of what had actually been said & showed that it had been taken totally out of context.

The burden of proof is on you. Show me where they both, or even one, support your claim of the existence of Fluffy Flying Pink Elephants. If you can't, we can safely assume they never supported your claim, can't we?




Exactly. My scenario is exactly the same. If I were to make wild claims, citing these experts as having supported them I would, quite rightly, be expected to quantify where such supporting statements were made. I have challenged you time & time again to provide evidence to support the Mighty God Brown's claims & time & tmie again you have been unable to. Why? Because you can't. It never happened.

Once again, since the quotes are found in Brown's book, I would have to use his book to prove they are relevant to the context, wouldn't I?


Once again, as stated already, the quotes are selective at best & taken out of context, making them bogus & fraudulent.



Let me challenge you to show that Brown's book is the product of his imagination and not scientifically valid and therefor "nonsense."


I have already provided links to reputable scientific journals that denounce him as a charlatan, as well as other Creationist organisations who say the same thing. Try reading some of the posts I've already made. I don't intend to follow your lead of repeatedly copying & pasting everything.

Pahu;1473284 wrote: Are you claiming that heat does not always flows from a hot body to a cold body?
I claim only that I am unaware this is always true. Which law of thermodynamics says this?

Pahu;1473284 wrote: Are you claiming that if the universe were infinitely old—has always been here—everything would not have the same temperature?
I know of no law that says this must be so.

Pahu;1473284 wrote: In what way are those statement pure speculation. What is speculative about the rest of my statement?


They lack valid scientific evidence to support them.Therefore they are pure speculation, or they are just plain incorrect.

Here is some simplified discussions about the laws of thermodynamics, and Entropy. You might find it interesting.

Thermodynamics | Physics For Idiots

Pahu;1473269 wrote:

"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.)"


Heat is just one of 5 basic forms of energy, namely Heat, Sound, Light, Kinetic & Potential. All of which may be converted from one into another. My fridge takes heat from the inside & moves it to the outside. Does that mean my fridge has always been there?

Heat will NOT always move from a higher temperature into a lower temperature. It requires a conduit through which to pass, which is why, as with sound, it will not move through a vaccuum which, by its very nature has no temperature.

"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?"




Hawking used the term 'IF' the Universe was boundless because we know that it isn't. Even you have admitted in previous posts that it is known to be expanding. Therefore it had a central starting point & is continuing to grow. Therefore, by having a starting point it is shown that it cannot always have existed.

Notice how he uses an "if" statement to bolster his need to deny the existence of God.




And this is the same scientist that supports the claims of some nut job Creationist? As you have pointed out, he is clearly DENOUNCING Brown's claims by denying the Creator theory. Yet Brown cites him as one of those to support his beliefs. You've listed one name so far & it has now been proved to be a bogus citation. Next...?

You describe the Universe as an entity where energy (correction, heat, seeing as you don't seem to know the difference) should be equally distributed by units of energy per cubic meter. In reality this is not the case. If you light a candle, the further you go from the origin of the light source provided by the candle, the weaker it appears, until it seems to vanish altogether. This is imply because the energy (light) is dissipated thoughout the surrounding volume, much like an elastic band. In its relaxed state it has a certain circumference, but as you stretch it, although the circumference may increase, the thickness of the rubber lessens until it is too thin to sustain coherence & snaps, whereas if it were capable of stretching indefinitely, then it would continue to get thinner still, right up to the sub atomic level - but the volume of the elastic band remains the same. It doesn't grow to accommodate its surroundings.

What do you find unscientific about that statement? On the other hand, Hawking's statement is totally evidence free speculation:




Hawking is Internationally acknowledged as being one of, if not the leading physicist geniuses in the world. I hardly think that his claims are going to be evidence free speculation which your / your master's unfounded beliefs outweigh with nothing more than fantasy.

Something cannot bring itself into existence.�* Therefore, something brought it into existence.�*What brought the universe into existence?�* It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist.�* Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.


Your claim all along is that God did just that, despite your claiming that such things are impossible, yet accepting the existence of God as also being an impossibility you desperately try to invent exceptions to the laws of physics by saying the "He has presented Himself to us" as being some kind of evidence.

The funniest thing of all is that the more you try to argue your case the more you prove that the opposite is true.

FourPart;1473309 wrote:

Heat will NOT always move from a higher temperature into a lower temperature. It requires a conduit through which to pass, which is why, as with sound, it will not move through a vaccuum which, by its very nature has no temperature.


On the earth heat will always move from a higher temperature to a lower temperature. The conduit is the atmosphere where there is no vacuum.



Hawking used the term 'IF' the Universe was boundless because we know that it isn't.


Showing his venture into evidence free speculation.

Even you have admitted in previous posts that it is known to be expanding. Therefore it had a central starting point & is continuing to grow. Therefore, by having a starting point it is shown that it cannot always have existed.


Exactly my point, and before that beginning it did not exist and there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe has to be supernatural.

And this is the same scientist that supports the claims of some nut job Creationist?


I don't know about "nut job Creationist," but Hawking did confirm this statement by Walt Brown:

"Because temperatures vary, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning. (A beginning suggests a Creator.)"

Hawking said:

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

That is confirmation even though the rest of his quote moves into evidence free speculation:

"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?"

As you have pointed out, he is clearly DENOUNCING Brown's claims by denying the Creator theory.


Only if you accept his evidence free speculation, which you don't (see above).

Yet Brown cites him as one of those to support his beliefs.


Which he does (see above).

You've listed one name so far & it has now been proved to be a bogus citation.


In what way is it bogus (see above)?

You describe the Universe as an entity where energy (correction, heat, seeing as you don't seem to know the difference) should be equally distributed by units of energy per cubic meter. In reality this is not the case. If you light a candle, the further you go from the origin of the light source provided by the candle, the weaker it appears, until it seems to vanish altogether. This is imply because the energy (light) is dissipated thoughout the surrounding volume, much like an elastic band. In its relaxed state it has a certain circumference, but as you stretch it, although the circumference may increase, the thickness of the rubber lessens until it is too thin to sustain coherence & snaps, whereas if it were capable of stretching indefinitely, then it would continue to get thinner still, right up to the sub atomic level - but the volume of the elastic band remains the same. It doesn't grow to accommodate its surroundings.


Which doesn't change the fact that 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.)

Hawking is Internationally acknowledged as being one of, if not the leading physicist geniuses in the world. I hardly think that his claims are going to be evidence free speculation which your / your master's unfounded beliefs outweigh with nothing more than fantasy.


He may be a physicist genius, but when wanders into evidence free speculation (see above), he is still wrong and Walt Brown is right in this instance and everything else he has written. If you disagree, show us where he has not based his conclusions on the facts of science.

Your claim all along is that God did just that, despite your claiming that such things are impossible yet accepting the existence of God as also being an impossibility you desperately try to invent exceptions to the laws of physics by saying the "He has presented Himself to us" as being some kind of evidence.


When did I claim God is impossible? I said it is impossible for the universe to bring itself into existence from nothing.

There are no exception to the laws of physics. God is not part of the physical universe, He created it with all the laws that are a part of it.

The funniest thing of all is that the more you try to argue your case the more you prove that the opposite is true.


In what way?

Pahu;1473374 wrote: On the earth heat will always move from a higher temperature to a lower temperature. The conduit is the atmosphere where there is no vacuum.




Please show me the science behind your statement. Which law of Thermodynamics supports this notion?



Pahu;1473374 wrote:

Exactly my point, and before that beginning it did not exist and there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe has to be supernatural.




Please show me proof that the universe did not exist. You are back into that Evidence-free Speculation you keep talking about.

Pahu;1473374 wrote:

I don't know about "nut job Creationist," but Hawking did confirm this statement by Walt Brown:

"Because temperatures vary, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning. (A beginning suggests a Creator.)"

Hawking said:

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

That is confirmation even though the rest of his quote moves into evidence free speculation:

"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?"




I really like how you can pick and choose so well.

However, you really cannot. To take the single sentence out of context to support Brown's claim and discard everything else is NOT Science.

Sorry.

Still waiting for you to show us some science.

Pahu;1473374 wrote: On the earth heat will always move from a higher temperature to a lower temperature. The conduit is the atmosphere where there is no vacuum.



Hawking used the term 'IF' the Universe was boundless because we know that it isn't.


Showing his venture into evidence free speculation.



Even you have admitted in previous posts that it is known to be expanding. Therefore it had a central starting point & is continuing to grow. Therefore, by having a starting point it is shown that it cannot always have existed.


Exactly my point, and before that beginning it did not exist and there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe has to be supernatural.


Two consecutive responses to 2 consecutive quotes & as usual you contradict yourself.

He states a known fact that the Universe is expanding. You admit that you have agreed this point. Then you claim it is evidence free speculation. On the contrary, it is NOT evidence free speculation. It is a proven FACT.

An explosion originates in the centre. Within a fraction of a second its energy is dissipated in all directions. However, it is not purely energy. There is matter as well, and each piece of matter is of a random mass. All mass creates its own gravitational field (does that imply that the mass is a creator?). Gravitational fields do not only affect other matter, it affects energy as well. Even light will bend from the effects of gravity. This means that wherever there is matter, the balance of energy will be varied.

Surely you must accept the existence of volcanoes & the fact that there is molten rock beneath them? There are numerous volcanoes & hot water geysers in countries such as Iceland where the heat makes its way THROUGH the ice. If your theory of thermodynamics is correct this could not happen as the ice would be melted evenly from beneath, leaving the country with no surface ice.

Pressure is also a massive contributing factor to heat. The centre of the earth is extremely high in pressure. If you press a bicycle pump against your thumb it will get hot from the pressure.

Your presumption that the Universe should all be the same temperature is flawed in a multitude of ways. First of all inasmuch as the vast majority of the Universe is a vaccuum, and therefore doesn't have any heat. Secondly, even without an atmosphere, there will be thermals forming. Energy is not static. As soon as something moves, there is an inequality to the balance of heat, thus disproving your theory of everywhere being the same temperature. Where the air temperature is greater than body temperature most animals will sweat, so as to keep themselves cool. This means that heat is moving into a higher temperature. If your theory were correct the sweat would be heated & transfer its energy back into the body.

Heat rises. If your theory were so this could not be the case, as it leaves the cooler part of the object at the bottom, rather than an equal temperature throughout.

Incidentally, I tried Googling the Hawking quote that you claim, it order to get the entire context, and the only place I can find it on the entire internet are on Creationist websites & your multitude of crazy postings on other forums. I didn't find a single reference to where Hawking actually says it. Now, apart from Brown's "Quote", just where is it that Hawking states anything about there being a creator? By that, I mean any reputable Scientific Journal NOT associated with Creationism.

Evolving Planets? 1




Contrary to popular opinion, planets should not form from just the mutual gravitational attraction of particles orbiting a star, such as our Sun. Orbiting particles should spiral into its star or be scattered or expelled from their orbit—not merge (accrete) to become a planet (a). Experiments have shown that colliding particles, instead of sticking together, almost always fragment (b). (Similar difficulties exist in trying to form a moon from particles orbiting a planet.)

Despite these problems, let us assume that pebble-size to moon-size particles somehow evolved. “Growing a planet by many small collisions will produce an almost non-spinning planet, because spins imparted by impacts will be largely self-canceling (c).

a. “Planet formation is a paradox: according to standard theory, dust grains orbiting newborn stars should spiral into those stars rather than accrete to form planets. Philip Campbell, “Trap Holds Protoplanet Dust, Nature, Vol.*498, 13 June 2013, p.*141.

Very special conditions are required to capture and then merge orbiting bodies. They are discussed more fully starting on page 292.

b. John F. Kerridge and James F. Vedder, “An Experimental Approach to Circumsolar Accretion, Symposium on the Origin of the Solar System (Paris, France: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1972), pp.*282–283.

“It turns out to be surprisingly difficult for planetesimals to accrete mass during even the most gentle collisions. Erik Asphaug, “The Small Planets, Scientific American, Vol.*282, May 2000, p.*54.

c. Tim Folger, “This Battered Earth, Discover, January 1994, p.*33.

“‘We came to the conclusion,’ says Lissauer, ‘that if you accrete planets from a uniform disk of planetesimals, prograde rotation just can’t be explained,’ The simulated bombardment leaves a growing planet spinning once a week at most, not once a day. *Richard A. Kerr, “Theoreticians Are Putting a New Spin on the Planets, Science, Vol.*258, 23*October 1992, p.*548.

Luke Dones and Scott Tremaine, “Why Does the Earth Spin Forward? Science, Vol.*259, 15*January 1993, pp.*350–354.

Some believe that the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) gained their spins through a few very large and improbable impacts. However, this appeal to large or improbable impacts will not work for the giant outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune), which have the most spin energy. Such impacts on these gaseous planets would be even more improbable, because they move more slowly and are so far from the center of the solar system. Besides, impacts from large rocks would not account for the composition of the giant planets—basically hydrogen and helium.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

So - given up on the challenge to provide evidence to the claims, eh? Not surprising, as it would be an impossible task to prove a falsehood.

As for planet rotational orbits - what's so impossible & paradoxical about it? We use the same physics for our satelites & the International Space Station. The reason the remain in orbit is that they are moving so fast that their equilibriam cancels out the pull of gravity. As their energy of motion diminishes they will give way to the gravitational pull of the earth and will, as mentioned, steadily spiral downwards until they burn up in the atmosphere. The same thing is true of planets orbiting stars & moons orbiting planets. The difference is that it happens so slowly, over billenia, that it's not noticeable - although according to your Fairy Tale books (i.e. the Bible & Dolt Brown), the Universe & everything in it was only created less than 8000 years ago. Yeah, right.

Still no science

Still waiting

LarsMac;1473576 wrote: Still no science

Still waiting
Are you really surprised? His only reference source is written by Dolt Brown which is totally devoid of science, facts, or accredited 'quotes' from those who he claims to support him. Quotes which cannot be found anywhere but in his own book & in Pahu's own countless postings of the same. Then, whenever Pahu reaches a Dead End, where he knows he can't back up his arguments (if you can call copying & pasting from single source an argument) he just pasts a load more unfounded codswallop from the same source.

Pahu is that weirdo on the bus who suddenly jumps up and starts shouting out at everyone how God loves them all & that everyone must pay homage & pray to Him (we've got one like that round here - I wonder if it's Pahu).

FourPart;1473571 wrote: ...although according to your Fairy Tale books (i.e. the Bible & Dolt Brown), the Universe & everything in it was only created less than 8000 years ago. Yeah, right.


You underestimate Walt Brown:



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: Home of the Hydroplate Theory

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.10

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.12

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

FourPart;1473571 wrote: ...although according to your Fairy Tale books (i.e. the Bible & Dolt Brown), the Universe & everything in it was only created less than 8000 years ago. Yeah, right.


Here is some information about the Bible you may have overlooked:

1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:



The Rocks Cry Out

In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Archaeology and the Bible Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net

2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:

Scientific Facts in The Bible

Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki

SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible

3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

100prophecies.org

101 End Times Bible Prophecies

About Bible Prophecy

Bible Prophecies Fulfilled

Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

Bible Prophecy

No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

So, in other words, you have no science to offer.

You just regurgitate what other people have come up with. You understand nothing of what you post here, and have no grasp of what is really being said, or written by others. You simply rely on what Mr Brown wrote in his book, thinking the whole world should just take all this at his word, because you believe it.

LarsMac;1473589 wrote: So, in other words, you have no science to offer.

You just regurgitate what other people have come up with. You understand nothing of what you post here, and have no grasp of what is really being said, or written by others. You simply rely on what Mr Brown wrote in his book, thinking the whole world should just take all this at his word, because you believe it.


Remember the scientists who confirm his conclusions:

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, 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

More regurgitation? That's your response?

I think you've pretty much beat that horse to death, my friend.

LarsMac;1473594 wrote: More regurgitation? That's your response?

I think you've pretty much beat that horse to death, my friend.


The same statement requires the same response. Perhaps you've pretty much beaten that horse to death.

Pahu;1473601 wrote: The same statement requires the same response. Perhaps you've pretty much beaten that horse to death.


No, sir. My Beastie is alive and kicking. It is yours who is, at best, gasping its last.

LarsMac;1473607 wrote: No, sir. My Beatie is alive and kicking. It is yours who is, at best, gasping its last.


Time will tell.

Time & time again the paste the same unfounded clips.

Time & time again you paste the listed of supposed scientists who supposedly support Browns claims (from his own book, I might add).

Time & time again your refuse to cite exactly where these apparent supporting statements are - to name a publication is not enough. No-one can be expected to trawl though thousands of editions of reputable journals in order to find a quote, which is most likely taken out of context, if it exists at all.

Time & time again you are unable to answer direct questions to support your & Dolt Brown's claim.

Time & time again when you cannot answer a question you simply paste the same old crap in an attempt to avoid the situation.

Time & time again you paste the same few paragraphs, which have no foundation.

Time & time again you cite Creationist organisations as 'evidence'. By their very nature these are based on superstition & have no scientific foundation & can therefore be discounted.

You say I underestimate Dolt Brown. I say it's impossible to understimate such a screwball.

You say he has a PHD. So has Zoe, the cat.

Believe It: Zoe the Cat, PhD. | TIME.com

You say he is the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation. Well, that's hardly surprising is it, seeing as he invented it. I also happen to be the Director of the Church of the Sacred Fluffy Flying Pink Elephants. So what does that prove?

You say he is Ex-Army ('Ex' being the operative word). Perhaps he should be refered here:

About us | Combat Stress

Breakdown of sanity is not uncommon among former Military Personnel - in fact Mental Health injuries are far more common that physical disabilities.

Arthur Conan Doyle is recognised as a highly qualified man of science, who introduced the concept of Forensic Science to the world in the form of Sherlock Holmes. However, what is not so well known is that he also believed in fairies:

The Coming of the Fairies, by Arthur Conan Doyle Index

So, when are you going to stop interminally pasting the same old stuff & try using arguments of your own? You may have noticed that in this post alin I have cited more independant sources to support my statements than you have in this entire thread, because the only source you ever cite is the same one. One that you cannot quantify with any degree of validation quite simply because you cannot validate a falsehood.

If you can't resist the temptation to paste that questionable list again, then at least itemise each one with links to precisely where they made these supposed supporting quotes - NOT the name of some publication, but the actual text (Nor are any Creationist organisations acceptable as evidence).

Anything less shall be taken by default as your conceding that Brown's claims are false & unfounded.

Science Proves God




When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.

6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

8. Life exists.

9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).

10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.

11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown).



Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.

[ From “Reincarnation in the Bible?]

Superstition has always been borne of ignorance. Man, by his very nature, strives to understand. When something is beyond his understanding he makes things up to conveniently fill the gaps. Why things fall to the ground. Because God makes it so. Why there are tides in the sea. Because God makes it so. Why it rains. Because God makes it so. Anything & everything that has not been understood in the past there have always been the fools who look for the easy solution & attribute it to an imaginary being. Now that understanding has increased & the origin of the Universe is becoming more & more understood by examining the evidence the more people there are that accept that God is nothing more than the figment of some moronic imagination.

FourPart;1473751 wrote: Superstition has always been borne of ignorance. Man, by his very nature, strives to understand. When something is beyond his understanding he makes things up to conveniently fill the gaps.


Like evolution, which he makes up to conveniently fill the gaps in his evidence free naturalistic pre-suppositions.

Why things fall to the ground. Because God makes it so. Why there are tides in the sea. Because God makes it so. Why it rains. Because God makes it so. Anything & everything that has not been understood in the past there have always been the fools who look for the easy solution & attribute it to an imaginary being.


That being, God, is not imaginary as I proved. Your unwillingness to accept the facts of science is because of your evidence free pre-supposition that everything must be caused by mindless natural forces. The reason you cling to that notion is because, in your arrogance, you do not want to believe anyone can be smarter and greater than you.

Actually everything you mention, and more, as being caused by God is ultimately caused by Him.

Now that understanding has increased & the origin of the Universe is becoming more & more understood by examining the evidence the more people there are that accept that God is nothing more than the figment of some moronic imagination.


Nonsense! I have proved, using the facts of science, that God exists. You unwillingness to accept those facts, and the logic based on them, is explained above. The fact remains that there can be no natural origin of the universe, which appeared from nothing. The only explanation is supernatural.

Pahu;1473754 wrote: Like evolution, which he makes up to conveniently fill the gaps in his evidence free naturalistic pre-suppositions.



That being, God, is not imaginary as I proved. Your unwillingness to accept the facts of science is because of your evidence free pre-supposition that everything must be caused by mindless natural forces. The reason you cling to that notion is because, in your arrogance, you do not want to believe anyone can be smarter and greater than you.

Actually everything you mention, and more, as being caused by God is ultimately caused by Him.



Nonsense! I have proved, using the facts of science, that God exists. You unwillingness to accept those facts, and the logic based on them, is explained above. The fact remains that there can be no natural origin of the universe, which appeared from nothing. The only explanation is supernatural.


Actually, With all of this effort, you have done nothing to prove, or disprove anything. Except, perhaps, to yourself.

You have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever apart from the inane ramblings of some religious fanatic, and the suppositions of a load of other fanatics (including yourself), using Brown's own religious based organisation (which he conveniently invented) as your supposed 'expert' sources.

There is no way you can possibly prove the existence of a God because you cannot prove the existence of something that doesn't exist.

The Theory of Evolution was originally discounted by those in Darwin's time because of the superstitious ignorance of the time not being able to comprehend that everything they had been brainwashed into believing thus far was all a lie.

Conveniently filling in the gaps? Lets see...

1, 2, -, -, 5, 6, -, 8, 9.

I think I can deduce what the gaps are likely to be. This is how the progression of Evolution is found. At first there were massive gaps. Then more evidence would gradually come to light & scientists would start to realise that it was all part of a pattern. This has now been scientifically proven beyond a shadow of doubt with hard evidence. The only 'evidence' of a God is in your Dreamworld. You expect everyone to believe in your fantasy ideals & to ignore the hard evidence to the contrary. Get a life - better still - get a psychiatrist.

FourPart;1473764 wrote: You have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever apart from the inane ramblings of some religious fanatic, and the suppositions of a load of other fanatics (including yourself), using Brown's own religious based organisation (which he conveniently invented) as your supposed 'expert' sources.

There is no way you can possibly prove the existence of a God because you cannot prove the existence of something that doesn't exist.


I have proved He exists. Your evidence free anti-god pre-conception prevents you from accepting the facts.

FourPart;1473764 wrote:

The Theory of Evolution was originally discounted by those in Darwin's time because of the superstitious ignorance of the time not being able to comprehend that everything they had been brainwashed into believing thus far was all a lie.

Conveniently filling in the gaps? Lets see...

1, 2, -, -, 5, 6, -, 8, 9.

I think I can deduce what the gaps are likely to be. This is how the progression of Evolution is found. At first there were massive gaps. Then more evidence would gradually come to light & scientists would start to realise that it was all part of a pattern. This has now been scientifically proven beyond a shadow of doubt with hard evidence. The only 'evidence' of a God is in your Dreamworld. You expect everyone to believe in your fantasy ideals & to ignore the hard evidence to the contrary. Get a life - better still - get a psychiatrist.


If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record (a). Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, among insects, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly it is safe to conclude these gaps are real; they will never be filled.

�*

a. “But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? Darwin, The Origin of Species, p.�*163.

“...the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]. �*Ibid., p.�*323.

Darwin then explained that he thought these gaps existed because of the “imperfection of the geologic record. Early Darwinians expected the gaps would be filled as exploration for fossils continued. Most paleontologists now agree this expectation has not been fulfilled.

The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago has one of the largest collections of fossils in the world. Consequently, its dean, Dr. David Raup, was highly qualified to summarize the situation regarding transitions that should be observed in the fossil record.

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol.�*50, No.�*1, January 1979, p.�*25.

[continue]

[continued]

“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. *Stanley, p.*95.

“But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition. David S. Woodruff, “Evolution: The Paleobiological View, Science, Vol.*208, 16*May 1980, p.*716.

Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were included in Dr.*Patterson’s recent book entitled Evolution. In a personal letter, Patterson said:

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader? ... Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived. I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. Copy of letter, dated 10*April 1979, from Patterson to Sunderland.

“But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don’t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn’t, or might be, transitional between this group or that. Hitching, p.*19.

“There is no more conclusive refutation of Darwinism than that furnished by palaeontology. Simple probability indicates that fossil hoards can only be test samples. Each sample, then, should represent a different stage of evolution, and there ought to be merely ‘transitional’ types, no definition and no species. Instead of this we find perfectly stable and unaltered forms persevering through long ages, forms that have not developed themselves on the fitness principle, but appear suddenly and at once in their definitive shape; that do not thereafter evolve towards better adaptation, but become rarer and finally disappear, while quite different forms crop up again. What unfolds itself, in ever-increasing richness of form, is the great classes and kinds of living beings which exist aboriginally and exist still, without transition types, in the grouping of today. Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, Vol.*2 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), p.*32.

“This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants. George Gaylord Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p.*107.

“...the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another and very few cases where one can look at a part of the fossil record and actually see that organisms were improving in the sense of becoming better adapted. *Ibid., p.*23.

Some incorrectly claim that almost all scientists believe in evolution. The only survey of scientists of which I am aware, involved chemists. Fewer than half (48.3%) said, “it was possible that humans evolved in a continuous chain of development from simple elements in a primordial soup. A slight majority (51.7%) said, “supernatural intervention played a role. [Murray Saffran, “Why Scientists Shouldn’t Cast Stones, The Scientist, 5*September 1988, p.*11.]

Most professors in the basic sciences favor evolution, in part, because that is what they were taught and those who openly reject evolution are not hired or are fired. In the applied sciences (medicine, engineering, etc.) and among scientists in industry, those accepting and rejecting evolution may be nearly balanced. Gallup polls have shown that more Americans reject evolution than accept it.

Of course, scientific conclusions are based on evidence, not a vote, with the apparent exception of those who want to continue to believe in the evolution fable despite (not because of) the facts of science. The founders of modern science (Kepler, Bacon, Pascal, Boyle, Galileo, Hooke, and Newton—who, by the way, were creationists and opposed the evolutionary views of their day) based decisions on evidence. In contrast, the science of previous ages was based on philosophical deductions or authoritative opinions. Those who try to establish scientific truth by “counting noses regress into dark-age thinking. By that criterion, you would believe in a flat earth, because once most scientists believed in a flat earth.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps

Pahu;1473766 wrote: I have proved He exists. Your evidence free anti-god pre-conception prevents you from accepting the facts.
Where have you proved anything?

N.B. Pastings from Dolt Brown do NOT prove anything - quite the opposite.



If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record (a). Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, among insects, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly it is safe to conclude these gaps are real; they will never be filled.


Despite Brown's claim to the contrary, the fossil records DO show continuous & gradual changes. Yes, there are gaps. There are gaps in 1, 2, -, -, 5, 6, -, 8, 9, but do you, therefore, deny that there is clearly a sequence being demonstrated?

An interesting article by someone who has gone head to head with Dolt Brown:

Grays Harbor County Summary

FourPart;1473777 wrote: An interesting article by someone who has gone head to head with Dolt Brown:

Grays Harbor County Summary


That is an ugly webpage.

I found this one quite readable: An Examination of the Research of Creationist Walter Brown | NCSE

FourPart;1473773 wrote: Where have you proved anything?

N.B. Pastings from Dolt Brown do NOT prove anything - quite the opposite.



Despite Brown's claim to the contrary, the fossil records DO show continuous & gradual changes. Yes, there are gaps. There are gaps in 1, 2, -, -, 5, 6, -, 8, 9, but do you, therefore, deny that there is clearly a sequence being demonstrated?


The evidence shows there are no continuous & gradual changes in the fossil record. Can you show us any? Here is what scientists have to say:

"Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.)

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)

"What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." (Carroll, Robert L., "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," in Trends in Evolution and Ecology 15(1):27-32, 2000, p. 27.)

"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ... Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.)

"He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search. ... It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration ... The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)

"Despite the bright promise—that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467.)

About 80% of all known fossils are marine animals, mostly various types of fish. Yet there is no evidence of intermediate forms. "The most common explanation for the total lack of fossil evidence for fish evolution is that few transitional fossils have been preserved. This is an incorrect conclusion because every major fish kind known today has been found in the fossil record, indicating the completeness of the existing known fossil record." (Bergman, Jerry, "The Search for Evidence Concerning the Origin of Fish," CRSQ, vol. 47, 2011, p. 291. )

"Absence of the transitional fossils in the gaps between each group of fishes and its ancestor is repeated in standard treatises on vertebrate evolution. ... This is one count in the creationists' charge that can only evoke in unison from the paleontologists a plea of nolo contendere" (Strahler, Arthur, Science and Earth History, 1987, p. 408.).

"It is interesting that all the cases of gradual evolution that we know about from the fossil record seem to involve smooth changes without the appearance of novel structures and functions." (Wills, C., Genetic Variability, 1989, p. 94-96.)

"So the creationist prediction of systematic gaps in the fossil record has no value in validating the creationist model, since the evolution theory makes precisely the same prediction." (Weinberg, S., Reviews of Thirty-one Creationist Books, 1984, p. 8.)

"We seem to have no choice but to invoke the rapid divergence of populations too small to leave legible fossil records." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 99.)

"For over a hundred years paleontologists have recognized the large number of gaps in the fossil record. Creationists make it seem like gaps are a deep, dark secret of paleontology ..." (Cracraft, in Awbrey & Thwaites, Evolutionists Confront Creationists", 1984.)

"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. And it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)

Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago: "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks. ... One of the ironies of the creation evolution debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this 'fact' in their Flood. (Raup, David, "Geology" New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832, 1981.)

"As we shall see when we take up the creationist position, there are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradually intermediate ‘transitional’ forms between species, but also between larger groups—between say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be." (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65-66.)

[continue]

[continued]

"Transitions between major groups of organisms ¦ are difficult to establish in the fossil record." (Padian, K., The Origin of Turtles: One Fewer Problem for Creationists, 1991, p. 18.)

"A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163.)

"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed. ¦ The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)

"The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured ¦ ‘The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin’s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.’ ¦ their story has been suppressed." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71.)

"One must acknowledge that there are many, many gaps in the fossil record. ¦ There is no reason to think that all or most of these gaps will be bridged." (Ruse, "Is There a Limit to Our Knowledge of Evolution," 1984, p.101.)

"We are faced more with a great leap of faith ¦ that gradual progressive adaptive change underlies the general pattern of evolutionary change we see in the rocks ¦ than any hard evidence." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 57.)

"Gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record." (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p.22.)

"To explain discontinuities, Simpson relied, in part, upon the classical argument of an imperfect fossil record, but concluded that such an outstanding regularity could not be entirely artificial." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Hardening of the Modern Synthesis," 1983, p. 81.)

"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history—not the artifact of a poor fossil record." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59.)

"The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163.)

"Gaps in the fossil record - particularly those parts of it that are most needed for interpreting the course of evolution—are not surprising." (Stebbins, G. L., Darwin to DNA, Molecules to Humanity, 1982, p. 107.)

"The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity—of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40.)

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution." (Gould, Stephen J., "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," 1982, p. 140.)

"The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record." (Raff R.A, and Kaufman, T.C., Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, 1991, p. 34.)

"Gaps between higher taxonomic levels are general and large." (Raff R.A, and Kaufman, T.C., Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, 1991, p. 35.)

"We have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multi-cellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups." (McGowan, C., In the Beginning ¦ A Scientist Shows Why Creationists are Wrong, 1984, p. 95.)

"If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record, which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory." (The Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol. 119, no 22, p. 1.)

“People and advertising copywriters tend to see human evolution as a line stretching from apes to man, into which one can fit new-found fossils as easily as links in a chain. Even modern anthropologists fall into this trap. ¦ [W]e tend to look at those few tips of the bush we know about, connect them with lines, and make them into a linear sequence of ancestors and descendants that never was. But it should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable. (Gee, Henry, "Face of Yesterday, The Guardian, Thursday July 11, 2002.)

Large Gaps in the Fossil Record | Genesis Park

Pahu, it's been pointed out to you in this thread as well as thousands of times around the web that all you've done throughout your ramblings is misrepresent Evolution and then argue to disprove your own misrepresentation. There's a psychological diagnosis for your condition.

Every one of those posts (none of which, I might add, do not contain ANY evidence - merely uninformed hypothesies) only state that there are still gaps in the fossil records. If you had taken any notice of my posts you might have noticed that I acknowledged this. However, unlike your barmy notion of life suddenly not being & then being, in all its splendour, the realisation of the fossil jigsaw is still a relatively new one & from what pieces we have so far we can see that there is an ultimate picture. The problem is that we've not found all the missing pieces YET. Every day more & more pieces to the puzzle are being found. Or are you of the opinion that once the entire jigsaw is completed, bar 2 pieces, then those 2 pieces supports your hypothesis that these gaps are proof that there is no connection?

In this entire thread your postings have mainly consisted of 1 barmy creationist & the publications from his Creationist Organisation (claiming the organisation to be a reputable 'scientific' one which, by its very nature, it is not), other equally barmy Creationists, pasting of quotes taken out of contexts, and citations of reputable scientists where, despite being challenged on numerous occasions, you still have not been able to provide proof of where they said the things that you (or more to the point) Brown says they said. On the very rare occasion that you attempt to actually attempt to form an argument for yourself it falls flat on its face & you end up proving the case against what it is you claim to be the 'truth', inadvertently supporting the scientific approach instead.

Try this challenge for a while. Without using any quotes or pasting (particularly of Brown's), see if you can form a cogniscent argument for your claims for, say a week (and that doesn't mean by not posting for a week before going back to flooding the thread with another publication of the usual garbage). I very much doubt you will be able to meet the challenge as you don't appear to have a mind of your own, but are merely a mouthpiece for some deranged weirdo.

Ahso!;1473812 wrote: Pahu, it's been pointed out to you in this thread as well as thousands of times around the web that all you've done throughout your ramblings is misrepresent Evolution and then argue to disprove your own misrepresentation. There's a psychological diagnosis for your condition.


In what way have I misrepresented evolution?

FourPart;1473821 wrote: Every one of those posts (none of which, I might add, do not contain ANY evidence - merely uninformed hypothesies) only state that there are still gaps in the fossil records. If you had taken any notice of my posts you might have noticed that I acknowledged this. However, unlike your barmy notion of life suddenly not being & then being, in all its splendour, the realisation of the fossil jigsaw is still a relatively new one & from what pieces we have so far we can see that there is an ultimate picture. The problem is that we've not found all the missing pieces YET. Every day more & more pieces to the puzzle are being found. Or are you of the opinion that once the entire jigsaw is completed, bar 2 pieces, then those 2 pieces supports your hypothesis that these gaps are proof that there is no connection?


According to the testimony of the scientists I quoted, none of the pieces have been found. What pieces do you think have been found?

In this entire thread your postings have mainly consisted of 1 barmy creationist & the publications from his Creationist Organisation (claiming the organisation to be a reputable 'scientific' one which, by its very nature, it is not), other equally barmy Creationists, pasting of quotes taken out of contexts, and citations of reputable scientists where, despite being challenged on numerous occasions, you still have not been able to provide proof of where they said the things that you (or more to the point) Brown says they said. On the very rare occasion that you attempt to actually attempt to form an argument for yourself it falls flat on its face & you end up proving the case against what it is you claim to be the 'truth', inadvertently supporting the scientific approach instead.

Try this challenge for a while. Without using any quotes or pasting (particularly of Brown's), see if you can form a cogniscent argument for your claims for, say a week (and that doesn't mean by not posting for a week before going back to flooding the thread with another publication of the usual garbage). I very much doubt you will be able to meet the challenge as you don't appear to have a mind of your own, but are merely a mouthpiece for some deranged weirdo.


Spoken by a true evidence free anti-god person.

Which is my point precisely. There are millions of examples of hard evidence to support evolution. There is none to support the concept of a God.

Evolving Planets? 2




The growth of a large, gaseous planet (such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune) far from the central star is especially difficult for evolutionists to explain for several reasons (d):

a. Gases dissipate rapidly in the vacuum of outer space, especially the lightest two gases—hydrogen and helium, which comprise most of the giant planets.

b. Because gas molecules orbiting a star do not gravitationally pull in (or merge with) other gas molecules in the orbiting ring, a rocky planet, several times larger than Earth, must first form to attract all the gas gravitationally. This must happen very quickly, before the gas dissipates (e). (Jupiter’s hydrogen and helium is 300 times more massive than the entire Earth.)

c. Stars like our Sun—even those which evolutionists say are young—do not have enough orbiting hydrogen or helium to form one Jupiter (f).

Computer simulations show that Uranus and Neptune could not evolve anywhere near their present locations (g). The planets that are found outside our solar system also contradict the theories for how planets supposedly evolve. [See “Have Planets Been Discovered Outside the Solar System? on page*449.]

Based on demonstrable science, gaseous planets and the rest of the solar system did not evolve.

d. “Building Jupiter has long been a problem to theorists. George W. Wetherill, “How Special Is Jupiter? Nature, Vol.*373, 9*February 1995, p.*470.

“Talk about a major embarrassment for planetary scientists. There, blazing away in the late evening sky, are Jupiter and Saturn—the gas giants that account for 93% of the solar system’s planetary mass—and no one has a satisfying explanation of how they were made. Richard A. Kerr, “A Quickie Birth for Jupiters and Saturns, Science, Vol.*298, 29*November 2002, p.*1698.

e. This idea has a further difficulty. If, as the solar system began to form, a large, rocky planet quickly formed near Jupiter’s orbit, why didn’t a rocky planet form in the adjacent asteroid belt where we see more than 200,000 rocky bodies (asteroids) today?

f. B. Zuckerman et al., “Inhibition of Giant-Planet Formation by Rapid Gas Depletion around Young Stars, Nature, Vol.*373, 9*February 1995, pp.*494–496.

g. “In the best simulations of the process [of evolving Uranus and Neptune], cores for Uranus and Neptune fail to form at their present positions in even 4.5 billion years, [what evolutionists believe is] the lifetime of the solar system. ‘Things just grow too slowly’ in the outermost solar system, says Weidenschilling. ‘We’ve tried to form Uranus and Neptune at their present locations and failed miserably.’ Stuart Weidenschilling, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Shaking Up a Nursery of Giant Planets, Science, Vol.*286, 10 December 1999, p.*2054.

Renu Malhotra, “Chaotic Planet Formation, Nature, Vol.*402, 9*December 1999, pp.*599–600.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

So much for being able to go for a week forming arguments of your own instead of pasting quotes from His Master's Voice.

Case proved. You are a mindless automaton.

Incidentally, these gases are Elements & not Molecules, as Brown states. A Molecule is a collection of Elements which have been fused as a result of a flame. i.e. Water is a Molecule comprising of the Elements Hydrogen & Oxygen. Such an 'Elementary' mistake for a self proclaimed 'scientific' genius - or is the elemental make-up of water another thing that you deny?

Secondly, gases don't dissipate, per se. They are driven by some other force. This may be a chemical reaction, such as with an explosion giving them impetus, or by being drawn to a gravitational field. Once set in motion, by Newtons 2nd law (I think it's the 2nd anyway) once an object is set in motion it will keep moving until it meets with a resisting force, be that a solid object, gravity or friction. However, in his Wisdom, Brown seems to be of the opinion that he can disprove Newtonian Law.

Pahu;1473826 wrote: In what way have I misrepresented evolution?

Ahso!;1473999 wrote:


That's our Pahu.

FourPart;1473832 wrote: Which is my point precisely. There are millions of examples of hard evidence to support evolution. There is none to support the concept of a God.


Give us at least one example of hard evidence to support evolution.

Give us at least one example showing us there is no God. Here is an example proving God exists:

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.

6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

8. Life exists.

9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).

10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.

11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown).



Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.

[ From “Reincarnation in the Bible?]