ForumGarden

LarsMac;1480454 wrote: So, another example of the OP's blatant lack of science, and of Mr Brown's unscientific method of picking and choosing just the words that agree with his sad point of view.

I offer the conclusion of the article that Brown took this bit from:
No doubt, with Venus mirroring the Earth so much, Brown's claim would be that there is no lava on Venus, but that the outer crust is merely floating on an underground ocean of pressurised water. At least that's what he says about the earth.

FourPart;1480455 wrote: The real joke about it, though, is that it's not even Paste-hu that writing it down. All he's doing is copying someone else's twaddle.

Actually, if his posts aren't against the forum's spamming rules, aren't they against the Flooding ones? (Especially since he's always going on about the Great Flood).


Are you trying to be punny?

I had to laugh just now. I just started reading the thread to see what his latest pastes were going to be, and whether he had made any more repeated comments, and was thinking that nope - same old pastes. Then I realised I had forgotten to go to the first unread post. The very first few pastes are EXACTLY the same ones that he keeps pasting even now, and still no change. No sign of individual thought. No response to challenges to provide independent citation (he considers pasting a list of random names & publications to be independent citation, and refuses to cite precisely where these references are made - obviously because they don't exist). The one quote that he did come up with, namely of Stephen Hawking, he clearly didn't think to check out first, as it was blatantly taken out of context so that the meaning of the phrase meant the exact opposite of what Brown (and his puppet, Pahu) was making it out to be, yet Pahu still tries to back up his claim by insisting that it was an actual quotation of his words. He clearly doesn't understand the meaning of 'context'.

If all the pastes were to be deleted & only leave the actual POSTS that Pahu has made, this entire thread would most likely only be about 4 pages long.

I have my suspicions that Pahu IS Dolt Brown trying to spam his own work of fiction.

FourPart;1480550 wrote: I had to laugh just now. I just started reading the thread to see what his latest pastes were going to be, and whether he had made any more repeated comments, and was thinking that nope - same old pastes. Then I realised I had forgotten to go to the first unread post. The very first few pastes are EXACTLY the same ones that he keeps pasting even now, and still no change. No sign of individual thought. No response to challenges to provide independent citation (he considers pasting a list of random names & publications to be independent citation, and refuses to cite precisely where these references are made - obviously because they don't exist). The one quote that he did come up with, namely of Stephen Hawking, he clearly didn't think to check out first, as it was blatantly taken out of context so that the meaning of the phrase meant the exact opposite of what Brown (and his puppet, Pahu) was making it out to be, yet Pahu still tries to back up his claim by insisting that it was an actual quotation of his words. He clearly doesn't understand the meaning of 'context'.

If all the pastes were to be deleted & only leave the actual POSTS that Pahu has made, this entire thread would most likely only be about 4 pages long.

I have my suspicions that Pahu IS Dolt Brown trying to spam his own work of fiction.


It is possible. Either that, or he's a true believer!

Is this thread in jest???? On the contrary science has shown that evolution is consistent with the record.

Ted;1480762 wrote: Is this thread in jest???? ...


Well, it is hard to take seriously.

Ted;1480762 wrote: Is this thread in jest???? On the contrary science has shown that evolution is consistent with the record.
On the contrary. He really seems to believe what he's saying. The thread may not be a joke, but Pahu certainly is. You only need to look at the timespan of it to see that. Still, where would we be without him? If nothing else he gives us something to laugh at.

Space, Time, and Matter Demand A Beginning




No scientific theory exists to explain the origin of space, time, or matter. Because each is intimately related to or even defined in terms of the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the others (a).

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 (b)).

a. Nathan R. Wood, The Secret of the Universe, 10th edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1936).

b. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 140–141.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Paste-hu strikes again. He even pasted the accreditation twice, so as to duplicate his stupidity.

Pahu;1480806 wrote:

Space, Time, and Matter Demand A Beginning




No scientific theory exists to explain the origin of space, time, or matter. Because each is intimately related to or even defined in terms of the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the others (a).


Totally untrue. Evidence is abundant.

Furthermore the very existence of the Big Bang Theory immediately disproves your statement (sorry, His statement, seeing as YOU never make any statements of your own). It is a Scientific Theory, and probably the best known Scientific Theory as to the origins of the Universe.

Furthermore, the term "Theory", in the scientific sense, unlike when used in the way you / Dolt Brown is trying to portray it does not mean unproven. It means that based on a series of pieces of evidence a Theory is formed on the basis of that evidence & projections are made which further evidence continues to support. It's like if you see some footsteps going in a straight line across some soft ground, before stopping at the road. You then take a length of string joining where the footsteps started to where they stopped. The string then forms the theory. Continuing that line across the road is likely to give a good idea as to where the next set of footprints would reappear. In the other direction it is also possible to tell where the footsteps are likely to have originated from. There has to be evidence in order to form a theory in the first place.

Heat always flows from a hot body to a cold body.
Actually, not necessarily so. There is no such thing as cold for a start, as it is merely the lack of heat. Heat is a form of energy. Cold, which doesn't exist, is not. Hit will not pass through a vaccuum. A vaccuum has no heat, therefore may be viewed as 'cold'. Another statement disproved. Also, density & pressure play a great deal in the matter of heat transfer.

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
Nobody said it didn't have a beginning. The Big Bang was the beginning.

(A beginning suggests a Creator
As usual, this is where you / Brown goes into the realms of using unfounded superstitious imagination as "factual evidence"

(b)).





b. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 140–141.




Ah, yes - the favourite classic where Brown blatantly cherry picks the words of the most reputed physicist in the world from a presentation that was being made to refute the existence of a God. He then deliberately places it not only totally out of context, but uses it, fraudulently, to reverse the original meaning of its full intention. If he had used the ENTIRE quote (which I did, remember) it would have shown him up for the fake that he is, yet you refuse to see this even in the face of all the evidence to back it up.

I will accede to the scientific community.

Originally Posted by Pahu:

Space, Time, and Matter Demand A Beginning


No scientific theory exists to explain the origin of space, time, or matter. Because each is intimately related to or even defined in terms of the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the others (a).

FourPart;1480816 wrote:

Totally untrue. Evidence is abundant.


Where is that abundant evidence refuting that statement?

Furthermore the very existence of the Big Bang Theory immediately disproves your statement. It is a Scientific Theory, and probably the best known Scientific Theory as to the origins of the Universe.


Actually the Big Bang notion is an evidence free hypothesis, not a theory, and it fails to deal with the origin of the universe since it starts with all the matter in the universe, condensed to the size of a pin head. Where did the matter come from? Before it existed there was nothing from which the universe appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause was supernatural.

There has to be evidence in order to form a theory in the first place.


Exactly!

Heat always flows from a hot body to a cold body.

Actually, not necessarily so. There is no such thing as cold for a start, as it is merely the lack of heat. Heat is a form of energy. Cold, which doesn't exist, is not. Hit will not pass through a vaccuum. A vaccuum has no heat, therefore may be viewed as 'cold'. Another statement disproved. Also, density & pressure play a great deal in the matter of heat transfer.


Are you claiming heat always flows from a cold body to a hot body? Have you ever observed such an exchange? If there is no such thing as cold, then what is it in your fridge that keeps your food from spoiling? Perhaps you need to readjust your understanding of reality.

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.

Nobody said it didn't have a beginning. The Big Bang was the beginning.


If the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, where did that matter come from? Since the evidence free notion claims the universe existed in a condensed form, then it was not the beginning. The universe just existed in a different form.

A beginning suggests a Creator.

As usual, this is where you / Brown goes into the realms of using unfounded superstitious imagination as "factual evidence"

(b)).


Much more believable than the unfounded superstition that the universe created itself from nothing.

b. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 140–141.

Ah, yes - the favourite classic where Brown blatantly cherry picks the words of the most reputed physicist in the world from a presentation that was being made to refute the existence of a God. He then deliberately places it not only totally out of context, but uses it, fraudulently, to reverse the original meaning of its full intention. If he had used the ENTIRE quote (which I did, remember) it would have shown him up for the fake that he is, yet you refuse to see this even in the face of all the evidence to back it up.


We have dealt with this before. That statement by Hawking is factual after which this "most reputed physicist in the world" descends into evidence free fantasy in the rest of his quote. Brown quoted him because what he said confirms Brown's statement that a beginning of the universe suggests a Creator. They are both saying the same thing. Brown was not trying to suggest that Hawking believes in a Creator.

Pahu;1480838 wrote: Originally Posted by Pahu:

Are you claiming heat always flows from a cold body to a hot body? Have you ever observed such an exchange? If there is no such thing as cold, then what is it in your fridge that keeps your food from spoiling? Perhaps you need to readjust your understanding of reality.


Actually, the fridge it quite a good example. It works by way of removing heat from the inside & transferring it by way of a solvent (lower density), then to be dissipated out the back. The same goes for an Air Conditioner. The term "Absolute Zero" is as 'cold' as you can get as it is the absence of all heat. They do not 'make cold' they remove heat. Elementary Physics. I defy you to find me one single scientific source that defines "Cold" as a form of energy.



We have dealt with this before. That statement by Hawking is factual after which this "most reputed physicist in the world" descends into evidence free fantasy in the rest of his quote. Brown quoted him because what he said confirms Brown's statement that a beginning of the universe suggests a Creator. They are both saying the same thing. Brown was not trying to suggest that Hawking believes in a Creator.


Yes, we have dealt with this before, and the key word is CONTEXT. If Brown had included the full quote that would have been an entirely different matter, because it would have refuted his claim. This is why he cherry picked the words. It's like saying "Given the values x & y we could suppose that the total is z". In itself that may seem a valid statement (Brown's selection). But when it goes on to say something like "However, we know that both x & z have positive values & that z is zero, therefore this cannot be the case" (Brown's ommission) the statement takes on a totally different meaning. Yes, it is a quote, in the sense that the words were uttered. The meaning it is being used to represent is utterly fraudulent.

The FULL quote:

Stephen Hawking

“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?
The point being that it is known that the Universe is expanding, therefore it does have a boundary & an edge. Like a balloon, it also has a central point - the beginning.

The nonsense spouted by Brown about if the Universe were infinitely old then it would all be the same temperature, if anything, goes to support the argument against himself, as it isn't infinitely old. It began at the point of the Big Bang. If it were infinitely old with no boundaries, with nothing to affect the transfer of heat, then that might be the case, but as it isn't, the statement is moot.

Regarding the difference between a Hypothesis & a Theory. The Big Bang Theory has never been called the Big Bang Hypothesis, for a very good reason. However, I will accede that there is a fine line between the two. Moreover, I doubt very much if you came up with that yourself. It implies some level of thinking.

Here's a link that asks the same question & answers it.

Wouldn't the Big Bang theory be considered a hypothesis and not a theory? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

The Hydroplate Theory, on the other hand, is most certainly only a hypothesis at best, using little or no evidence to extrapolate some notion that has no credibility whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Pahu:

Are you claiming heat always flows from a cold body to a hot body? Have you ever observed such an exchange? If there is no such thing as cold, then what is it in your fridge that keeps your food from spoiling? Perhaps you need to readjust your understanding of reality.

FourPart;1480844 wrote: Actually, the fridge it quite a good example. It works by way of removing heat from the inside & transferring it by way of a solvent (lower density), then to be dissipated out the back. The same goes for an Air Conditioner. The term "Absolute Zero" is as 'cold' as you can get as it is the absence of all heat. They do not 'make cold' they remove heat. Elementary Physics. I defy you to find me one single scientific source that defines "Cold" as a form of energy.


Who said cold is a form of energy? But you are admitting cold does exist, aren't you. And the fact remains that heat flows from a hot body to a cold body until there is equilibrium.

We have dealt with this before. That statement by Hawking is factual after which this "most reputed physicist in the world" descends into evidence free fantasy in the rest of his quote. Brown quoted him because what he said confirms Brown's statement that a beginning of the universe suggests a Creator. They are both saying the same thing. Brown was not trying to suggest that Hawking believes in a Creator.

Yes, we have dealt with this before, and the key word is CONTEXT. If Brown had included the full quote that would have been an entirely different matter, because it would have refuted his claim. ...therefore this cannot be the case" (Brown's ommission) the statement takes on a totally different meaning. Yes, it is a quote, in the sense that the words were uttered. The meaning it is being used to represent is utterly fraudulent.

The FULL quote:

Stephen Hawking

“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?


The point being that it is known that the Universe is expanding, therefore it does have a boundary & an edge. Like a balloon, it also has a central point - the beginning.


The first part of Hawking's statement is a fact and agrees with Brown's statement almost word for word. The rest of Hawking's statement is evidence free speculation, which you seem to disagree with.

The nonsense spouted by Brown about if the Universe were infinitely old then it would all be the same temperature, if anything, goes to support the argument against himself, as it isn't infinitely old. It began at the point of the Big Bang. If it were infinitely old with no boundaries, with nothing to affect the transfer of heat, then that might be the case, but as it isn't, the statement is moot.


What is nonsense about Brown's statement? According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, everything is moving toward a state of equilibrium. If the universe were infinitely old it would have long ago reached a state of no movement and the same temperature. The fact that that is not the case means the universe had a beginning.

The Big Bang is not the beginning of the universe because it supposedly contained all the matter in the universe in the size of a pinhead. It take a lot of faith to believe that! It simply existed in a different form. The question is where did the universe come from since before its beginning there was nothing.

Regarding the difference between a Hypothesis & a Theory. The Big Bang Theory has never been called the Big Bang Hypothesis, for a very good reason. However, I will accede that there is a fine line between the two. Moreover, I doubt very much if you came up with that yourself. It implies some level of thinking.


Descending into an Ad Hominem attack does not help your argument. A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. The next step in the scientific method is the theory, which is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. Finally there is a law which is a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present such as the second law of thermodynamics.

The Hydroplate Theory, on the other hand, is most certainly only a hypothesis at best, using little or no evidence to extrapolate some notion that has no credibility whatsoever.


The hydroplate hypothesis (Brown calls it a theory using the popular meaning of the word) is based on sound scientific principles and does the best job of explaining many of Earth's features such as:

The Grand Canyon (pages 205–238)

Mid-Oceanic Ridge

Earth’s Major Components

Oceanic Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire (pages 151–186)

Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor

Submarine Canyons

Coal and Oil

Methane Hydrates

Ice Age

Major Mountain Ranges

Frozen Mammoths (pages 255–285)

Overthrusts

Volcanoes and Lava

Geothermal Heat

Strata and Layered Fossils (pages 189–202)

Limestone (pages 247–252)

Metamorphic Rock

Plateaus

The Moho and Black Smokers

Salt Domes

Jigsaw Fit of the Continents

Changing Axis Tilt

Comets (pages 289–321)

Asteroids, Meteoroids and TNOs (pages 323–355)

Earth’s Radioactivity (pages 361–409)



In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview

Pahu;1480858 wrote: Originally Posted by Pahu:

Are you claiming heat always flows from a cold body to a hot body? Have you ever observed such an exchange? If there is no such thing as cold, then what is it in your fridge that keeps your food from spoiling? Perhaps you need to readjust your understanding of reality.


I never said 'always'. I said that it was not always necessarily the case. You're following Brown's example of cherry-picking words too much.

There is no such thing as 'cold' apart from as a man made term to express the lack of heat. The lack of air in an empty space is a vaccuum. What it is that keeps your food from spoiling (or, more to the point, slows the rate of spoiling) is the lack of heat. When a scientist wishes to cultivate a bacteria sample they place it in an incubator, adding heat to the environment so that it will thrive. Remove the heat & it becomes more dormant. If your theory of heat only moving to a colder object were true, fridges wouldn't be able to work. If there were no power to keep the solvents moving, then the fridge would eventually be in equilibrium. However, because the solvents are kept moving, and there are different levels of density because of it. For instance, if you were to replace the solvents in your fridge with water, it simply wouldn't work. The temperature of the solvent & the water would essentially be the same, but because one is more dense than the other one will draw heat to it, while the other will not. It's the evaporation factor that causes the heat transfer - not the temperature of the substance. Take a drop of alcohol & a drop of water, but at identical temperatures. Put them both on the back of your hand. Which will feel coldest? The alcohol, of course, because it is less dense & evaporates faster. That is reality. There is only heat. That is reality. You cannot measure cold. You can only measure heat. That is reality. Turning a load of empty glasses upsides down won't fill a room with emptiness. Turn the same number of glasses filled with water upside down & it'll flood the room with water. Water is the Heat. Emptiness is the Cold.



Who said cold is a form of energy? But you are admitting cold does exist, aren't you. And the fact remains that heat flows from a hot body to a cold body until there is equilibrium.


By saying cold is being made, you are implying that it is a form of energy, as energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form into another.

When circumstances remain unchanged, yes, there will eventually be equilibrium. However, in physics nothing remains unchanging. Even the electrons within atoms are constantly moving. They are stimulated by other things to react, causing chain reactions, starting the whole cycle all over again. For everything to be in equilibrium, everything, even those electrons would have to stop. That would mean that the energy would not longer exist. It would have been destroyed, which goes totally against the first law of physics.

We have dealt with this before. That statement by Hawking is factual after which this "most reputed physicist in the world" descends into evidence free fantasy in the rest of his quote. Brown quoted him because what he said confirms Brown's statement that a beginning of the universe suggests a Creator. They are both saying the same thing. Brown was not trying to suggest that Hawking believes in a Creator.

The first part of Hawking's statement is a fact and agrees with Brown's statement almost word for word. The rest of Hawking's statement is evidence free speculation, which you seem to disagree with.


Yes, we have been through all this before. The entire quote is directly connected to the rest of it. To cherry-pick parts from it so as to change its intended meaning is complete & utter fraud. You are happy to say that one part is true, but that everything else (from the world's foremost genius who, I might add, not only fully comprehends Quantum Mechanics, but was the one who came up with the model in the first place). I would accept his word over a charlatan such as Brown any day. Hawking is the LAST person anyone could accuse of basing his theories on evidence free speculation. Brown, on the other hand takes little bits of things, ignores the vast majority of everything else & denies anything that disproves what he says. No true scientist would claim that fossils appeared over a matter of a few months a mere few thousand years ago, yet that is Brown's premise for everything. If his Hydroplate notion had any basis, the people who are constantly drilling for oil would have discovered it by now, and it would be accepted as fact in all the textbooks. Why is this not so? Because it's utter bollocks. There is no evidence because it doesn't exist. I could just as easily say I see the shape of an elephant in the clouds, therefore that is evidence to substantiate my claim for the existence of my fluffy pink flying elephants. You can't deny that people around have seen the shapes of these elephants in the clouds. Utter proof that they exist.



What is nonsense about Brown's statement? According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, everything is moving toward a state of equilibrium. If the universe were infinitely old it would have long ago reached a state of no movement and the same temperature. The fact that that is not the case means the universe had a beginning.


First of all, no-one said that the Universe didn't have a beginning. On the contrary, I specifically stated that it did.

Secondly, it has been proven that the Universe is still expanding, and at an accelerated rate. This means it is still in its infancy. Eventually when it runs out of sufficient energy to keep it expanding it may well collapse in on itself, like a soap bubble, returning to that initial pinhead of energy.

The Big Bang is not the beginning of the universe because it supposedly contained all the matter in the universe in the size of a pinhead. It take a lot of faith to believe that! It simply existed in a different form. The question is where did the universe come from since before its beginning there was nothing.


Not quite. The general belief is that it was in the form of pure energy. Matter is more like a waste product of energy, but that's mere semantics.



Descending into an Ad Hominem attack does not help your argument. A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. The next step in the scientific method is the theory, which is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. Finally there is a law which is a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present such as the second law of thermodynamics.


No argument there. It all goes to substantiate Evolution as being a Theory, if not encroaching on a Law. It has been observed. It has been predicted. The predictions have been observed to happen. Given a change to an environment, over time animals (and all forms of life) will adapt to suit their environment & become dominant. Those that don't will eventually either die out entirely, or become a minority species. Even over the short term of a matter of, say 10,000 years, evidence from human skeletons shows a massive increase in the size of the brain. Humans thrive because of the evolved superiority of intelligence which allows us to conciously adapt to our environment, more usually by adapting the environment to suit ourselves. This is just one example of thousands that has been observed & recorded. When the world was lush, the animals upon it grew large, as that also made them safer from predators. Then, as food became more scarce the larger ones died off & the smaller ones thrived. This is the very nature of evolution. DNA is also a reliable test to prove the origins of various species. The Dodo, for instance, died out because of a predator being introduced to its environment - Man! However, DNA evidence proves that the Dodo was, in fact a Pigeon. It is known that by artificial selection dogs appear in all varieties of species, but no-one denies that they all have the wolf as their common ancestor.

The hydroplate hypothesis (Brown calls it a theory using the popular meaning of the word) is based on sound scientific principles and does the best job of explaining many of Earth's features such as:


At least you admit it's not even a theory at all, contrary to Brown's claim, yet you try to say that the Big Bang Theory isn't a theory at all when it has plenty of evidence to back it up. It may have started as a hypothesis, but it developed into a full blown theory.



The Grand Canyon (pages 205–238)

Mid-Oceanic Ridge

Earth’s Major Components

Oceanic Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire (pages 151–186)

Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor

Submarine Canyons

Coal and Oil

Methane Hydrates

Ice Age

Major Mountain Ranges

Frozen Mammoths (pages 255–285)

Overthrusts

Volcanoes and Lava

Geothermal Heat

Strata and Layered Fossils (pages 189–202)

Limestone (pages 247–252)

Metamorphic Rock

Plateaus

The Moho and Black Smokers

Salt Domes

Jigsaw Fit of the Continents

Changing Axis Tilt

Comets (pages 289–321)

Asteroids, Meteoroids and TNOs (pages 323–355)

Earth’s Radioactivity (pages 361–409)




None of these prove anything to substantiate any of Brown's claims. On the contrary, most of them totally disprove it when the facts as to what they are & how they were formed are accepted. Brown, on the other hand, denies the vast majority of scientific evidence & makes up his own stories & bases his 'facts' on the premise of his invented unsubstantiated tales. While carbon dating isn't quite an exact science, as it has to allow a couple of thousand years margin of error either way, the dates for the different locations are shown to vary not by just a few thousand years, but by millions of years - and this does not mean that everything happened at this particular time a certain number of years ago. It means they happened that number of million years apart. This evidence in itself totally debunks Browns claims of everything happening only a few thousand years ago & all fossils being created over the period of a few months. It is just plain madness.



In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview


Even the name of the site speaks for itself. Creationism is a faith based dogma. Science doesn't come into it. Therefore to refer to Creationist Science is a contradiction in terms.

Creation Science Rebuttals, Center for Scientific Creationism, Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model

FourPart;1480862 wrote:

It all goes to substantiate Evolution as being a Theory, if not encroaching on a Law.


Evolution is a disproved hypothesis as I have been showing.

It has been observed. It has been predicted. The predictions have been observed to happen.


When has evolution been observed and predicted? When have the predictions been observed to happen?

Given a change to an environment, over time animals (and all forms of life) will adapt to suit their environment & become dominant. Those that don't will eventually either die out entirely, or become a minority species.


All life forms have been created with the ability to adapt to changes in their environment--up to a point. They have never been observed to evolve into different life forms.

Even over the short term of a matter of, say 10,000 years, evidence from human skeletons shows a massive increase in the size of the brain. Humans thrive because of the evolved superiority of intelligence which allows us to conciously adapt to our environment, more usually by adapting the environment to suit ourselves. This is just one example of thousands that has been observed & recorded.

Where is the evidence of that observation and recording that humans evolved superiority of intelligence. They were created that way about 6000 years ago according to God's revelation.

[continue]

[continued]

When the world was lush, the animals upon it grew large, as that also made them safer from predators. Then, as food became more scarce the larger ones died off & the smaller ones thrived. This is the very nature of evolution.


Wrong! That is the very nature of adaptation. There is no evidence in the fossil record or elsewhere that any animal evolved.

[continue]

[continued]

DNA is also a reliable test to prove the origins of various species. The Dodo, for instance, died out because of a predator being introduced to its environment - Man! However, DNA evidence proves that the Dodo was, in fact a Pigeon. It is known that by artificial selection dogs appear in all varieties of species, but no-one denies that they all have the wolf as their common ancestor.




Figure 3: Dog Variability. When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - LifeSciences.html

Pahu;1480921 wrote: Evolution is a disproved hypothesis as I have been showing.


It isn't and you haven't.



When has evolution been observed and predicted? When have the predictions been observed to happen?


http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/evo_science.html



All life forms have been created with the ability to adapt to changes in their environment--up to a point. They have never been observed to evolve into different life forms.


That ability to adapt is called evolution. At what stage of change do you class something as a different lifeform? Over the short term the change is minimal & barely noticeable. Over the long term it's an entirely different matter.

Where is the evidence of that observation and recording that humans evolved superiority of intelligence. They were created that way about 6000 years ago according to God's revelation.


Here we go again. There is plenty of evidence in the fossilised & non-fossilised evidence. There is absolutely no evidence as to the existence of a God, let alone that it caused anything to happen. You can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by Pahu:

Evolution is a disproved hypothesis as I have been showing.

FourPart;1480928 wrote: It isn't and you haven't.


It is and I have.

When have the predictions been observed to happen?

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/evo_science.html


That is an impressive list that is erroneous for the most part.

That ability to adapt is called evolution.


Wrong! Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. That has never been observed in the fossil record or elsewhere. Adaptation is a change or the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment. But it remains the same organism or species.

At what stage of change do you class something as a different lifeform? Over the short term the change is minimal & barely noticeable. Over the long term it's an entirely different matter.


No change in lifeforms has ever been observed over the short or long term.

Where is the evidence of that observation and recording that humans evolved superiority of intelligence. They were created that way about 6000 years ago according to God's revelation.

Here we go again. There is plenty of evidence in the fossilised & non-fossilised evidence.


If there is plenty of evidence, why don't you produce some of it?

There is absolutely no evidence as to the existence of a God, let alone that it caused anything to happen. You can't have it both ways.




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? by Dan Carlton ]Reincarnation in the Bible? by Dan Carlton | 9781491811009 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble

As usual I respond to your claims with supporting evidence. When it goes against your God, the almighty Brown, you deny its veracity, despite it being documented countless time. If it doesn't agree with you, it doesn't exist.

You see evolution as low resolution, jumping from 1 state of things to an entirely different thing. If you look at a rainbow you can see all the different stripes - Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo & Violet - Low Resolution. However, if you view it gradually in High Resolution you won't be able to see the point at which any of these colours change from one into the next, yet eventually you realise that you started looking at Red & ended up looking at Violet.

Your claim that "God has revealed himself through the Holy Bible" is total Crapola. God had nothing to do with it. There's not even one chapter attributed to him. Just where is the Gospel According To God? Put quite simply it's because it was written by men with their own agenda, just as with you & Brown, making up circumstances, inventing suppositions & using the abstract as "Hard Evidence". What I have put forward IS hard evidence which has been acknowledged as such by all reputable scientists. Not one reputable scientist will take hearsay from a story book as evidence (needless to say, that doesn't include Religious Scientists, as theirs isn't true science, which has to be viewed objectively).

As usual you try to back up your feeble claims with the same of pasted twaddle. Quite why you bother is beyond me. You must surely know by now that nobody takes this stuff seriously. All you are serving to do is to show up Brown to be the charlatan that he is & to make a mockery of yourself in the process. You never make any arguments of your own, you merely copy & paste the same old stuff without any independent evidence or quantification. When evidence is placed against you, you simply deny its existence & call this science. This is typical of "Religious Science", which is why it has no place in the scientific world. When there is a multitude of hard evidence, one cannot pick & choose which ones to acknowledge. This is why it's a waste of time my giving you further examples of evidence. You would only deny their existence.

Try thinking for yourself once in a while. There is an amazing tool out there to research things other than the Holy Brown Bible (and a very appropriate colour). It's called Google. Come up with some hard evidence that isn't sourced from some spiritual / religious / creationist site & you will immediately increase your credibility. Come to that, a micron of evidence would increase your credibility by 1000% as thus far you have produced none.

FourPart;1480938 wrote: As usual I respond to your claims with supporting evidence. When it goes against your God, the almighty Brown, you deny its veracity, despite it being documented countless time. If it doesn't agree with you, it doesn't exist.


Where is that supporting evidence? Where is that countless documentation? I agree with facts.

You see evolution as low resolution, jumping from 1 state of things to an entirely different thing.


Where is the evidence supporting that assertion?

If you look at a rainbow you can see all the different stripes - Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo & Violet - Low Resolution. However, if you view it gradually in High Resolution you won't be able to see the point at which any of these colours change from one into the next, yet eventually you realise that you started looking at Red & ended up looking at Violet.


That is your evidence?

Your claim that "God has revealed himself through the Holy Bible" is total Crapola. God had nothing to do with it. There's not even one chapter attributed to him. Just where is the Gospel According To God?


The whole Bible is attributed to God from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22.

Put quite simply it's because it was written by men with their own agenda...


Really? How is it those men were able to accurately predict the future? The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:



100prophecies.org

101 End Times Bible Prophecy

About Bible Prophecy

Bible Prophecies Fulfilled

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

Bible Prophecy

...just as with you & Brown, making up circumstances, inventing suppositions & using the abstract as "Hard Evidence".


Where is your evidence supporting that assertion?

What I have put forward IS hard evidence which has been acknowledged as such by all reputable scientists.


For example?

Not one reputable scientist will take hearsay from a story book as evidence (needless to say, that doesn't include Religious Scientists, as theirs isn't true science, which has to be viewed objectively).


That is true of all scientists. Many scientists accept that God exists because the facts they have discovered prove His existence.

As usual you try to back up your feeble claims with the same of pasted twaddle.


Twaddle means to talk or write in a trivial or foolish way. What I am pasting is based on sound scientific facts.

Quite why you bother is beyond me. You must surely know by now that nobody takes this stuff seriously.


How do you know? Have you interviewed everyone? Those who a willing to put aside their preconceptions, accept the facts and think, take it seriously.

All you are serving to do is to show up Brown to be the charlatan that he is & to make a mockery of yourself in the process.


Here is what others think of this "charlatan":

Walt Brown’s Endorsements



HERE’S WHAT OTHERS SAY ABOUT THIS EXCITING BOOK

Walt Brown’s book is the rarest of species: It is the most complete reference work I have encountered on the scientific aspects of the multifaceted subject of origins. At the same time it presents a comprehensive theoretical framework (his hydroplate theory) for reconciling the many seemingly unrelated, and sometimes apparently contradictory, facts that bear on these questions. This book is essential for any teacher or student who is serious about resolving these issues on the basis of the evidences rather than on opinions or unsubstantiated or unverifiable hypotheses.

Dr. C. Stuart Patterson, former Academic Dean and Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus, Furman University

The subject of origins is not peripheral; it is foundational. I have spent most of my adult career in universities in the U.S. and Europe (as a Fulbright scholar), and it is clear that Christianity is losing ground on college campuses. The Christian faith is becoming unraveled with bad science. I can say without reservation that In the Beginning is the single most useful resource I know of on this subject, bar none. Walt is both diligent and creative, and you will find the arguments concise and thought provoking. The material is helpful on almost any level, and the references will be invaluable to those wishing to dig deeper. If I had to send my child off with only two books, they would be the Bible and In the Beginning.

Dr. Kent Davey, Senior Research Scientist, The Center for Electromechanics, University of Texas at Austin

Classic uniformitarian geology has failed to solve a number of problems in geology. By contrast, using catastrophic basic assumptions, Dr. Brown has given scientists a way of addressing many problems that is philosophically sound and scientifically acceptable to objective thinkers. Never before have I encountered a more intellectually satisfying and respectable attack on a broad spectrum of geologic and biologic problems that are laid bare in this work.

Dr. Douglas A. Block, Geology Professor, Emeritus, Rock Valley College

Dr. Walt Brown uses three striking gifts in his creation science research and teaching: (1) a highly organized mind, (2) the ability to consider scientific evidence without the encumbrance of conventional paradigms, and (3) the ability to articulate the material with complete clarity. Walt is a born teacher. This enables him to develop significant new theories, such as the hydroplate theory, and to present them with remarkable clarity in both his seminars and this book. I am convinced that everyone needs to be familiar with the landmark work documented in this book.

Dr. Stanley A. Mumma, Professor of Architectural Engineering, Pennsylvania State University

Dr. Walt Brown’s seminal text, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood has developed into a mature exposition of an important new approach to the geological sciences. The hydroplate theory is an alternate explanation of events of the Noahic flood, present-day geological features of the world, and actual mechanisms that operated then and continue to do so now. It directly challenges the current plate tectonics model of large-scale geology, and suggests a major revamping of the geological events associated with the flood God sent upon the world in light of the clear text of Genesis. It represents, then, a serious attempt at reconstructing the science of geology from the ground up.

Martin G. Selbrede, “Reconstructing Geology: Dr. Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory, Chalcedon Report

The subject of origins is inherently interesting to all of us, yet this topic is so broad that one can get lost in the sheer volume of information. As a biologist and a Christian, I find In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood to be the most concise, scholarly treatment of the scientific evidence supporting creation that I have ever read. This book is a must for anyone who is serious about understanding the creation/evolution debate. Science teachers, regardless of religious affinities, should also find this excellent resource a valuable addition to their reference libraries.

Terrence R. Mondy, Outstanding Biology Teacher for Illinois, 1999–2000

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ements.htm

You never make any arguments of your own, you merely copy & paste the same old stuff without any independent evidence or quantification.


With my limited education, I find it is better to rely on those with a higher education for the facts.

When evidence is placed against you, you simply deny its existence & call this science. This is typical of "Religious Science", which is why it has no place in the scientific world. When there is a multitude of hard evidence, one cannot pick & choose which ones to acknowledge. This is why it's a waste of time my giving you further examples of evidence. You would only deny their existence.


What evidence? So far your “evidence has consisted of speculation masquerading as science.

[continue]

[continued]

Try thinking for yourself once in a while. There is an amazing tool out there to research things other than the Holy Brown Bible (and a very appropriate colour). It's called Google. Come up with some hard evidence that isn't sourced from some spiritual / religious / creationist site & you will immediately increase your credibility. Come to that, a micron of evidence would increase your credibility by 1000% as thus far you have produced none.


The reason I share hard evidence with you is because in thinking for myself, I have concluded the evidence is factual and confirmed by scientists, such as:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, 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

Unlike yourself, I don't intend on pasting the same old stuff over & over again. I have given you many examples of evidence. You have either merely denied them or simply pasted a whole load more garbage. Never do you ever argue your own case. All you do is to paste from Creationist websites, which Brown has either created himself or is closely connected to. If you disagree with something you never say why you disagree with something or give reasons for doing so. When someone has an opinion on something & argues their case properly by doing their own research I will respect that. You don't. You only have a single source & you refuse to accede that any of his foundless claims might be flawed. In this respect you cannot be afforded any respect. You don't deserve it.

Try going onto Google once in a while. Find what independent REAL scientists have to say about Brown - that is if they can even be bothered to mention him. A common thing that comes up a great deal of the time is his claim that he has made challenges to debate anyone on the matter, and then it appears that when accepted he backs down & refuses to debate - even signing a contract to do so & then reneging on it. These are not opinions, they are hard based documented facts, with his signatures on them, demonstrating him to be a fraud.

With my limited education, I find it is better to rely on those with a higher education for the facts.
Then you might as well rely on a Bunny Rabbit.

FourPart;1480996 wrote:

A common thing that comes up a great deal of the time is his claim that he has made challenges to debate anyone on the matter, and then it appears that when accepted he backs down & refuses to debate - even signing a contract to do so & then reneging on it. These are not opinions, they are hard based documented facts, with his signatures on them, demonstrating him to be a fraud.


Here are the facts:

Summary of Joe Meert/Walt Brown Communications Concerning a Written Debate

For over twenty years Walt Brown has offered to engage in a written debate on the question, “Does the Scientific Evidence Favor Creation or Evolution? The strictlyscientific aspect of this debate has always been the central part of the offer (To read the complete debate agreement, see: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Why Do Creation Organizations Have Differences?).

Joe Meert contacted Walt Brown in 1996 to accept the challenge. Soon after reading the copy of In the Beginning that Walt Brown sent him, Meert no longer wanted to debate just the scientific evidence. He now wanted to include religious discussions and the Bible, which was always contrary to the debate offer. Meert insists that an editor would decide if religious arguments could be part of the exchange, but according to the offer, the editor would decide procedural differences between debaters, not the actual debate topic.

Joe Meert falsely claims that Walt Brown refuses to debate him, but the truth is that Joe Meert refuses to participate in a strictly scientific debate. The following segments from email and letters will give readers more details:

On Aug 26, 1996, Joe Meert wrote Walt Brown:

“I am a faculty member in Geology at Indiana State University. At the present time, I would be interested in the debate form at providing there is NO THEOLOGY discussed. The debate will be on the intrinsic merits of the SCIENCE and no discussion of creationism or the Bible should be allowed. Once the debate enters this realm it becomes a debate about theology NOT geology. [Emphasis his.]

A courtesy copy of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood (6th Edition) was then sent to Joe Meert.

On Aug. 27, 1996, Joe Meert wrote:

“Yes, I am well qualified to enter a scientific debate IF there is science to be debated. I am not qualified to debate theological arguments that are based on faith alone. . . .You know, I would be more than happy to debate Walter on science if he was able to debate science. I found out very early on in life that you can’t debate theology and that is really what Walt wants.

On Aug. 31, 1996, Joe Meert, after receiving the book, changed his position and wrote Walt Brown:

“I have one major problem with the format of the debate. You refuse to allow religious discussion and want to debate on purely scientific grounds.

On Aug. 31, 1996, Walt Brown wrote Joe Meert:

“You contradict yourself. Either sign the debate agreement and propose any changes which the editor will rule on in a binding manner, or face the fact that you are unwilling to enter into a purely scientific debate on origins.

Joe Meert then signed the debate agreement, but added the stipulation that the debate would include religious arguments and discussions. If Walt Brown did not agree, an editor would decide. Note that the debate agreement says an editor will resolve disagreements about procedures, not what the topic will be. Meert wished to change not procedures, but the topic itself from one dealing with scientific evidence to one that would include religion.

Meert wrote, “Your ‘Science’ is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible and nothing more. In short: no Bible, no Genesis, no flood, no hydroplate theory. A debate about your science MUST include your basic underlying assumption which is entirely biblical not scientific.

Walt Brown’s debate offer has always been for a strictly scientific written debate on the evidence pertaining to origins. The following is from CSC’s web site:

“The debate must be restricted to science and avoid religion, a broader, more complex, and less structured discipline. My focus is on the scientific evidence relating to origins. Scientific methodology is better understood by most people. Indeed methods for reaching religious conclusions are vast, subjective, and cultural. Religious disagreements—often emotional and unresolvable—have been with us for thousands of years. A purely scientific debate will be broad enough.

In addition, if even a few pages of “religious discussions were part of this written debate, it would never be allowed in the public schools. A strictly scientific exchange would be an exciting resource for public school teachers and students.

On Nov. 7, 2002, Joe Meert wrote Walt Brown:

“Are you willing to follow this? [He then took three sentences from CSC’s web site and quoted them.]

‘Evolutionists who disagree and wish to participate can propose alternatives. However, they must sign, as I will, that they will abide by the editor’s decisions resolving disagreements about debate procedures.’

On Nov. 21, 2000, Peggy (CSC) wrote Joe Meert:

“We received your letter this week. You still wish to include religion in the written debate, but Dr. Brown’s debate offer has always been for a strictly scientific written debate on the evidence pertaining to origins, with no religion. A simple reading of the written debate offer clearly states that, as I am sure you realize. What you propose is not a change in debate procedures (which would be decided by an editor). You wish to change the debate topic itself from one dealing with no more and no less than the scientific evidence. You are eager to broaden the debate topic to include religion and you may be able to find others to engage in such a discourse. However, that is not the issue that Walt Brown has challenged evolutionists to debate.

Yours,

Peggy

CSC

“P.S. Walt was more succinct when I showed your letter to him. ‘Either Meert chooses not to read accurately, or he is unable to base his case on science alone, or he is so angry at the Bible that it is his target.’ Walt also said, that if you want to debate religion, go elsewhere.

[continue]

Summary of Joe Meert/Walt Brown Communications Concerning a Written Debate

[continued]

On Aug. 8, 2001, Peggy (CSC) wrote a person who was communicating with Joe Meert:

“We understand Joe Meert’s position and also understand your frustration. Walt Brown’s debate proposal does include a provision for changing debate PROCEDURES, but what Joe Meert wishes to do is change the debate TOPIC to include discussions of religion. You are suggesting that all we need to do is find an independent editor and if that editor rejects Meert’s suggested change in the debate topic, the debate would then take place. Conversely, if the editor ruled religion in, then the debate would not be strictly on scientific matters. Why would anyone enter a debate and allow a third party to later decide what the topic will be? On the other hand, an impartial editor would be the best person to resolve any disagreement on rules, word lengths, time between submissions, format, number of submissions, etc. All of this is clearly laid out at our web site and in the book. Please reread either of those offers.

“The topic Walt wishes to debate has always been, “Does the scientific evidence support creation or evolution? (No religious views or writings permitted.) Joe Meert is not willing to debate that topic. If Joe Meert wishes to debate the question and include religious discussions, he will need to find another opponent. Walt Brown will only debate if the exchange is limited to scientific evidence.

On 8/24/01 Joe Meert posted the following at his web site:

Fact

1. Walt Brown’s challenge includes a provision for requesting a change in the rules.

Fact

2. Meert submitted the request for a slight change (2 pages) and agreed to have the request decided by an independent arbiter. He agreed to abide by that decision.

Fact

3. Walt Brown has both the request and my signed agreement and needs only to act on them.

Fact

4. Walt will never act on this debate because he does not really want debate. Debate spoils his party. The claim “No evolutionist will debate me gives the outward appearance of ‘my arguments are so good no one can challenge them’. If that is removed, Walt does not look so good. I’ve done everything Walt requested and I can’t do anything more until he decides to have the issue heard by an independent editor. I have gone back and forth on this issue so many times on pages it gets boring. The agreement is signed and I agree to abide by the decision of an independent. If he/she says that 2 pages of biblical discussion is off limits, then so it shall be.

Cheers

Joe Meert

On Jan. 2, 2002, Peggy (CSC) wrote another third party who had seen Meert’s above accusations:

“You have been misinformed. Joe Meert wants the debate to include religion. Dr. Brown’s offer has for 21 years always been for a strictly scientific debate. Meert initially wrote us and insisted on a strictly scientific debate. We agreed and sent him a free copy of Dr. Brown’s book. Meert then said the debate must include religion.

“It is always best to hear both sides of a controversy before drawing an opinion. Let me suggest that you urge Joe Meert to enter into a strictly scientific debate with Dr. Brown. In case of disagreements between the debaters, Walt Brown’s debate proposal has a provision for changing debate PROCEDURES, but what Joe Meert wishes to do is change the debate TOPIC to include discussions of religion. Why would anyone enter a debate and allow a third party to later decide what the topic will be? On the other hand, an impartial editor is the best person to resolve any disagreement on rules, word lengths, time between submissions, format, number of submissions, etc.

“All of this is quite clearly laid out at our web site and in the book. At our home page (The Center for Scientific Creation), scroll down to the bottom of the home page or click on the bullet labeled ‘Written Debate.’ There you will read:

“‘The issue is: Does the scientific evidence favor creation or evolution? Dr. Brown’s standing offer for a strictly scientific, written, and publishable debate is on page 321.’ Please read the entire passage and note that a few initially agreed to a strictly scientific debate, but later changed their minds, insisting they would only take part if the exchange included religion. One evolutionist [Joe Meert] is so upset that a written debate will not include religion that he now misleads by saying that Walt Brown has refused to debate him. (Correspondence in our files shows how he no longer wanted a strictly scientific debate after reading the 6th edition of this book.) Dr. Brown has consistently maintained his position for 21 years; the debate should be limited to scientific evidence.

“If someone says, ‘Walt Brown has refused to debate,’ we suggest you ask to see that person’s signed debate agreement. (Walt Brown has published his on pages 321-323.) After reading that, go read the written debate offer at In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Why Do Creation Organizations Have Differences? and compare it with what Joe Meert is saying. If Joe Meert wishes to debate the question and include religious discussions, he will need to find another opponent. Walt Brown will only debate if the exchange is limited to scientific evidence.

“The first draft of the debate agreement was a joint effort in 1982 by a world famous geologist, Dr. Robert S. Dietz, and Dr. Brown. (Dietz was one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory.) Dr. Brown lectured on creation at Arizona State University where Dr. Dietz taught. During the lecture, Dr. Brown gave the written debate challenge to Dr. Dietz who was sitting on the front row along with an assistant editor and photographer from Arizona’s main newspaper, The Arizona Republic.

“Although Dr. Dietz had earlier declined the offer when the University Activities Director took both men to lunch, Dietz accepted it there in the auditorium, perhaps to save face. Much applause followed. (The Activities Director had spent weeks trying to set up an oral debate, but could find no willing evolutionist.) The next day The Arizona Republic had a major article about the written debate agreement. (See “Debate Recalls ‘Monkey Trial’, 6 February 1982, page F1). One sentence in that article read, “Each promised to present only scientific evidence for evolution or creation, and to avoid religious issues. Over the next several weeks the two men communicated several times by phone and easily formulated the agreement without bickering or rancor. Months later, Dietz called Walt Brown and the assistant editor (who had agreed to be the debate’s editor) and formally backed out.

“Dietz said he had tried writing his side of the debate but found he couldn’t avoid religion. The editor (who was an evolutionist) went to Dietz’s office and tried to get Dietz to stay in the debate. Dietz would not. Oddly enough, three years later, Dr. Brown moved from Chicago to Phoenix where he and Dietz had dozens of meetings and became friends. Dr. Dietz died several years ago.

“Another false statement Meert is making is that Dr. Brown ‘claims he is not able to discuss theology.’ Not true. Although Dr. Brown is not trained as a theologian, he is certainly able to discuss theology. He simply insists that the written debate be restricted to science. One simple reason for requiring this is that the debate would be of great interest to students and teachers in public schools. However, if the least bit of religious discussion is included, public schools would reject the debate.

“Allowing religious wrangling would also reinforce the false impression many have that creationists are pushing religion, but evolutionists want to deal only with science. Yes, we all have our religious views, but let’s leave that out of our public schools. The issue will eventually be resolved based on science, which is what evolutionists fear.

“We get frequent letters such as yours. People are surprised to find that the creationist wants to debate the evidence while the evolutionist wants to argue religion. Many then examine the scientific case and are excited by what they discover. To the extent that Meert is helping people see this, we are very grateful. (Most people can quickly see through Meert’s distortions.) Meert is also raising people’s awareness of the importance in having a thorough, written, scientific debate on this important issue. For that, we appreciate your interest and his bluster.

Sincerely,

Peggy

CSC

http://www.trueorigin.org/Meert1.pdf

That would be a silly debate. Scientific evidence does not favor.

Evidence is evidence.

If you pick and choose your evidence, you can draw all sorts of conclusions.

Once again your only response is more pasting from Brown's biased perspective. The only thing I'm pasting is a URL:

Walt Brown

This is a report by the editor in question from a neutral standpoint. Not surprisingly it places Brown's selective claims in an entirely different light.

First & Second Laws of Thermodynamics




The first law of thermodynamics states that the total energy in the universe, or in any isolated part of it, remains constant. In other words, energy (or its mass equivalent) is not now being created or destroyed; it simply changes form. Countless experiments have verified this.

A corollary of the first law is that natural processes cannot create energy. Therefore, energy must have been created in the past by some agency or power outside and independent of the natural universe. Furthermore, if natural processes cannot produce mass and energy (the inorganic portion of the universe) then it is even less likely that natural processes can explain the much more complex organic (or living) portion of the universe.

The universe is an isolated system, so according to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy in the universe available for useful work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the energy available for useful work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe, which, according to the first law of thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition, thus implying the universe had a beginning (a).

A further consequence of the second law is that the universe must have begun in a more organized and complex state than it is today—not in a highly disorganized and random state as assumed by evolutionists and proponents of the big bang theory (b).

a. “The more orthodox scientific view is that the entropy of the universe must forever increase to its final maximum value. It has not yet reached this: we should not be thinking about it if it had. It is still increasing rapidly, and so must have had a beginning; there must have been what we may describe as a ‘creation’ at a time not infinitely remote. Jeans, p.181.

b. “A final point to be made is that the second law of thermodynamics and the principle of increase in entropy have great philosophical implications. The question that arises is how did the universe get into the state of reduced entropy in the first place, since all natural processes known to us tend to increase entropy?...The author has found that the second law tends to increase his conviction that there is a Creator who has the answer for the future destiny of man and the universe. Gordon J. Van Wylen, Thermodynamics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959), p.169.

“The time asymmetry of the Universe is expressed by the second law of thermodynamics, that entropy increases with time as order is transformed into disorder. The mystery is not that an ordered state should become disordered but that the early Universe apparently was in a highly ordered state. Don N. Page, “Inflation Does Not Explain Time Asymmetry, Nature, Vol.304, 7July 1983, p.39.

“There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly-ordered state. Ibid., p.40.

“The real puzzle is why there is an arrow of time at all; that is, why the Universe is not simply a thermodynamic equilibrium at all times (except during the inevitable local fluctuations). The theory of nonequilibrium systems [such as those described by Ilya Prigogine] may tell us how such systems behave, given that there are some; but it does not explain how they come to be so common in the first place (and all oriented in the same temporal direction). This is ‘time’s greatest mystery’, and for all its merits, the theory of nonequilibrium systems does not touch it. What would touch it would be a cosmological demonstration that the Universe was bound to be in a low-entropy state after the Big Bang. Huw Price, “Past and Future, Nature, Vol.348, 22 November 1990, p.356.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[Ditto ]

Pahu;1481327 wrote: [From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[Ditto ]


That is the best. Not only is the same old tripe pa[hu]sted, but rather than pasting it all over again he just puts "Ditto" to save time.

FourPart;1481329 wrote: That is the best. Not only is the same old tripe pa[hu]sted, but rather than pasting it all over again he just puts "Ditto" to save time.


I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone would want to endlessly bombard a forum with an endless, unoriginal copy/paste "lecture" in flawed reasoning and selective "point scoring", often taken out of context.:-3

Pahu,

Brown's statements assume that the Universe is a closed system.



There is no evidence that the Universe is a closed system.

Therefore, the arguments are invalid.

Smaug;1481332 wrote: I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone would want to endlessly bombard a forum with an endless, unoriginal copy/paste "lecture" in flawed reasoning and selective "point scoring", often taken out of context.:-3


What is flawed about the reasoning based on the facts?

Pahu;1481377 wrote: What is flawed about the reasoning based on the facts?
That's the point. Nothing is flawed when reasoning is based on facts. The point is that Brown's reasoning (if you can class him as having reason in the first place) is NOT based on facts. It is based on unsupported conjecture.

LarsMac;1481376 wrote: Pahu,

Brown's statements assume that the Universe is a closed system.



There is no evidence that the Universe is a closed system.

Therefore, the arguments are invalid.


The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:

that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)

usable energy is running out

information tends to get scrambled

order tends towards disorder

a random jumble won’t organize itself

It also depends on the type of system:

An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running down— see If God created the universe, then who Created God? for what this implies.

A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.

An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:

¦ there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ¦ There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.

Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.

The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.

It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.

To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.

I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics: answers to critics - creation.com

FourPart;1481379 wrote: Nothing is flawed when reasoning is based on facts. The point is that Brown's reasoning (if you can class him as having reason in the first place) is NOT based on facts. It is based on unsupported conjecture.


Are you denying that the First & Second Laws of Thermodynamics are facts?

Energy is not running out. It can't. The first law of Conservation of Energy shows that (Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form into another). There is 'x' amount of energy in the Universe. The Universe is expanding. Therefore the 'dilution' factor of that finite amount of energy is becoming greater. If you put 5 marbles into a balloon & keep inflating the balloon, it doesn't matter how much you inflate it, you're still going to have 5 marbles. No more. No less.

Pahu;1481393 wrote: The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:

that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)

usable energy is running out

information tends to get scrambled

order tends towards disorder

a random jumble won’t organize itself

It also depends on the type of system:

An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running down— see If God created the universe, then who Created God? for what this implies.

A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.

An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:

¦ there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ¦ There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.

Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.

The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.

It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.

To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.

I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics: answers to critics - creation.com


I ask, again, do you have evidence that the universe is a closed system? Or an isolated system (if you prefer that term)?

maybe this will help:

Top 5 misconceptions about evolution (Infographic) | Sciencedump

FourPart;1481379 wrote: That's the point. Nothing is flawed when reasoning is based on facts. The point is that Brown's reasoning (if you can class him as having reason in the first place) is NOT based on facts. It is based on unsupported conjecture.


Hear,hear! Assumption mixed with conjecture and surmise, with selected "facts" thrown in as an attempt to legitimize unsupportable or unproveable theories.

Smaug;1481429 wrote: Hear,hear! Assumption mixed with conjecture and surmise, with selected "facts" thrown in as an attempt to legitimize unsupportable or unproveable theories.Actual skeptics lay out their objections fully in specific detail focusing on bits that can be proved, or not. Troll-like objections, OTOH, tend to be general and non-specific.

Ahso!;1481438 wrote: Actual skeptics lay out their objections fully in specific detail focusing on bits that can be proved, or not. Troll-like objections, OTOH, tend to be general and non-specific.


No, just an opinion. I tend to go a little "wall-eyed" at the relentless nature, and huge size of these copy/paste assertions. It's one of the reasons I don't post very much on this thread! Original posts written with thought and care are different. ANYONE can copy and paste endlessly. If someone posts on a public forum, they've got to expect feedback, whether positive OR negative.

What's the odds these posts will simply be refuted by a totally irrelevant pasting of another chapter from Dolt Brown?

Big Bang? 1




The big bang theory, now known to be seriously flawed (a), was based on three observations: the redshift of light from distant stars, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and the amount of helium in the universe. All three have been poorly understood.

Redshift. The redshift of starlight is interpreted as a Doppler effect (b); that is, stars and galaxies are moving away from Earth, stretching out (or reddening) the wavelengths of light they emit. Space itself expands—so the total potential energy of stars, galaxies, and other matter increases today with no corresponding loss of energy elsewhere (c). Thus, the big bang violates the law of conservation of energy, probably the most important of all physical laws. Furthermore, these galaxies, in their recession from us, should be decelerating. Measurements show the opposite; they are accelerating. [See “Dark Thoughts on page 34.]

a. “Observations only recently made possible by improvements in astronomical instrumentation have put theoretical models of the Universe under intense pressure. The standard ideas of the 1980s about the shape and history of the Universe have now been abandoned—and cosmologists are now taking seriously the possibility that the Universe is pervaded by some sort of vacuum energy, whose origin is not at all understood. Peter Coles, “The End of the Old Model Universe, Nature, Vol. 393, 25 June 1998, p. 741.

“Three years ago, observations of distant, exploding stars blew to smithereens some of astronomers’ most cherished ideas about the universe. To piece together an updated theory, they’re now thinking dark thoughts about what sort of mystery force may be contorting the cosmos.

“According to the standard view of cosmology, the once infinitesimal universe has ballooned in volume ever since its fiery birth in the Big Bang, but the mutual gravitational tug of all the matter in the cosmos has gradually slowed that expansion.

“In 1998, however, scientists reported that a group of distant supernovas were dimmer, and therefore farther from Earth, than the standard theory indicated. It was as if, in the billion or so years it took for the light from these exploded stars to arrive at Earth, the space between the stars and our planet had stretched out more than expected. That would mean that cosmic expansion has somehow sped up, not slowed down. Recent evidence has only firmed up that bizarre result.Ron Cowen, “A Dark Force in the Universe,Science News,Vol. 159, 7 April 2001, p. 218.

“Not only don’t we see the universe slowing down; we see it speeding up.Adam Riess, as quoted by James Glanz, “Astronomers See a Cosmic Antigravity Force at Work,Science,Vol. 279, 27 February 1998, p. 1298.

“In one of the great results of twentieth century science, NSF-funded astronomers have shown both that the universe does not contain enough matter in the universe to slow the expansion, and that the rate of expansion actually increases with distance. Why? Nobody knows yet.National Science Foundation Advertisement, “Astronomy: Fifty Years of Astronomical Excellence,Discover,September 2000, p. 7.

“The expansion of the universe was long believed to be slowing down because of the mutual gravitational attraction of all the matter in the universe. We now know that the expansion is accelerating and that whatever caused the acceleration (dubbed “dark energy) cannot be Standard Model physics.Gordon Kane, “The Dawn of Physics Beyond the Standard Model,Scientific American,Vol. 288, June 2003, p. 73.

“Astronomy, rather cosmology, is in trouble. It is, for the most part, beside itself. It has departed from the scientific method and its principles, and drifted into the bizarre; it has raised imaginative invention to an art form; and has shown a ready willingness to surrender or ignore fundamental laws, such as the second law of thermodynamics and the maximum speed of light, all for the apparent rationale of saving the status quo. Perhaps no ‘science’ is receiving more self-criticism, chest-beating, and self-doubt; none other seems so lost and misdirected; trapped in debilitating dogma. Roy C. Martin Jr., Astronomy on Trial: A Devastating and Complete Repudiation of the Big Bang Fiasco (New York: University Press of America, 1999), p. xv.

b. Redshifts can be caused by other phenomena. [See Jayant V. Narlikar, “Noncosmological Redshifts, Space Science Reviews, Vol. 50, August 1989, pp. 523–614.] However, large redshifts are probably the result of the Doppler effect.

c. “...energy in recognizable forms (kinetic, potential, and internal) in an expanding, spatially unbounded, homogeneous universe is not conserved. Edward R. Harrison, “Mining Energy in an Expanding Universe, The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 446, 10 June 1955, p. 66.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

FourPart;1481547 wrote: What's the odds these posts will simply be refuted by a totally irrelevant pasting of another chapter from Dolt Brown?


Bingo !!

Science Disproves Evolution

Science Disproves Evolution - Pahu's Pile of Preachy PooPoo - Raving Atheists Forum

Science Disproves Evolution - Science and Faith - Worthy Christian Forums

VoyForums: Science Disproves Evolution

Science Disproves Evolution | The Rational Response Squad

Science Disproves Evolution

Science Disproves Evolution - Discussion on Topix

And so on and so on...

Anyone notice the common denominator ?

FourPart;1481744 wrote: Science Disproves Evolution

Science Disproves Evolution - Pahu's Pile of Preachy PooPoo - Raving Atheists Forum

Science Disproves Evolution - Science and Faith - Worthy Christian Forums

VoyForums: Science Disproves Evolution

Science Disproves Evolution | The Rational Response Squad

Science Disproves Evolution

Science Disproves Evolution - Discussion on Topix

And so on and so on...

Anyone notice the common denominator ?


Umm, well,..., it's not 'Science'

No wonder he doesn't form any rational arguments. He doesn't have the time between touring all the other forums with his latest Clipboard contents. Paste it... Move on... Paste another copy... Move on...

I still don't get the point of it. Still, "it takes every kind of people, to make this world go round"....

That was part of a song from the seventies, I think. Don't know who sung it, though.