ForumGarden

Pahu;1493054 wrote: Show us where the quotes change the meaning of the contexts.
Your / Brown's quote of Hawking was totally out of context. It was a partial quote of a lecture being made about the true origin of the Universe, as opposed to Creationism. He if there were a God then such a thing would be so, but continued to point out that this wasn't the case & that therefore there would be no need for a God. It was this latter part that was conveniently omitted. It's like if I were to say something like "If I were to say I am a Creationist, it would be a blatant lie", and then you cherry pick from that quote the part that said "I am a Creationist". Sure, it would be an accurate quote, but it would clearly be out of context. This is what Brown did with Hawking's words.

As for your "Critique" post, as I previously pointed out, Creationists are very rarely qualified in anything relevant to what they claim to be experts in. Ashby L. Camp is qualified in law - a profession, incidentally he was banned from being a partner in.

Now, for a critique of the critique from someone who DOES know what they're talking about (Life Sciences Faculty - Douglas Theobald).

A response to Ashby Camp's "Critique"

As for your following post - the usual "Disregarded Crap"

FourPart;1493061 wrote: Your / Brown's quote of Hawking was totally out of context. It was a partial quote of a lecture being made about the true origin of the Universe, as opposed to Creationism. He if there were a God then such a thing would be so, but continued to point out that this wasn't the case & that therefore there would be no need for a God. It was this latter part that was conveniently omitted. It's like if I were to say something like "If I were to say I am a Creationist, it would be a blatant lie", and then you cherry pick from that quote the part that said "I am a Creationist". Sure, it would be an accurate quote, but it would clearly be out of context. This is what Brown did with Hawking's words.


Here is what Brown quoted: “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.

That is a true statement confirming Brown's conclusion that; "Heat always flows from a hot body to a cold body. If the universe were infinitely old—has always been here—everything would have the same temperature. Because temperatures vary, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning (A beginning suggests a Creator)."

After that true statement by Hawking, he continues with evidence free speculation trying to make a case against a Creator. The quote does not change the meaning of the context.

As for your "Critique" post, as I previously pointed out, Creationists are very rarely qualified in anything relevant to what they claim to be experts in. Ashby L. Camp is qualified in law - a profession, incidentally he was banned from being a partner in.

Now, for a critique of the critique from someone who DOES know what they're talking about (Life Sciences Faculty - Douglas Theobald).

A response to Ashby Camp's "Critique"


Here is Camp's response to Douglas Theobald's response to his Critique: - Camp answers Theobald -, which is based on the facts of science.

A Young Universe?




Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.



For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old. Here are some of these points of evidence:



Helium




One product of radioactive decay within rocks is helium, a light gas. This helium enters the atmosphere—at a much faster rate than it escapes the atmosphere. (Large amounts of helium should not escape into outer space, even when considering helium’s low atomic weight.) Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere’s helium in only 40,000 years. Therefore, the atmosphere appears to be young (a).

a. “What Happened to the Earth’s Helium? New Scientist, Vol. 24, 3 December 1964, pp. 631–632.

Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models (London: Max Parrish, 1966), pp. 10–14.

Melvin A. Cook, “Where is the Earth’s Radiogenic Helium? Nature, Vol. 179, 26 January 1957, p. 213.

Joseph W. Chamberlain, Theory of Planetary Atmospheres (New York: Academic Press, 1987), pp. 371–372.

From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown

Pahu;1493078 wrote: Here is what Brown quoted: “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.
Once again - the quote in its entirety:

“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 keyword here is "BUT"

That is a true statement confirming Brown's conclusion that; "Heat always flows from a hot body to a cold body. If the universe were infinitely old—has always been here—everything would have the same temperature. Because temperatures vary, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning (A beginning suggests a Creator)."




Up as far as "(A beginning suggests a Creator)" I would agree. However, as is typical of Brown, he uses unfounded suppositions as 'facts'. A beginning suggests nothing more than there being a beginning. It doesn't suggest the origin or any cause of the beginning whatsoever.

After that true statement by Hawking, he continues with evidence free speculation trying to make a case against a Creator. The quote does not change the meaning of the context.


As I said, cherry picking sections of a quote to suit his own purposes. Creationism adopts the view of the Universe being a closed system. Hawking merely says that if it were such, then one might suppose there could be a creator. However, as it has been proved that it is NOT a closed system, and is expanding, then the initial condition is not true - "What place, then, for a creator?". It is the convenient omission of the quantification that takes the quote out of context. He had clearly tried to make it appear that Hawking was agreeing with the existence of a creator when, in actual fact he was making the case against it.



Here is Camp's response to Douglas Theobald's response to his Critique: - Camp answers Theobald -, which is based on the facts of science.


If you had bothered to read the article fully you would have noticed that he puts him right on there - in the Green Boxes. Pointing out that his "facts of science", as you put it, are inaccurate & demonstrates that Camp doesn't have a true understanding of what he's talking about, as well as his doing the usual Creationist trick of taking things out of context & deliberately misrepresenting original statements (no surprise there).

Pahu;1493082 wrote:

A Young Universe?




Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.



For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old. Here are some of these points of evidence:



Helium




One product of radioactive decay within rocks is helium, a light gas. This helium enters the atmosphere—at a much faster rate than it escapes the atmosphere. (Large amounts of helium should not escape into outer space, even when considering helium’s low atomic weight.) Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere’s helium in only 40,000 years. Therefore, the atmosphere appears to be young (a).

a. “What Happened to the Earth’s Helium? New Scientist, Vol. 24, 3 December 1964, pp. 631–632.

Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models (London: Max Parrish, 1966), pp. 10–14.

Melvin A. Cook, “Where is the Earth’s Radiogenic Helium? Nature, Vol. 179, 26 January 1957, p. 213.

Joseph W. Chamberlain, Theory of Planetary Atmospheres (New York: Academic Press, 1987), pp. 371–372.

From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown


"Disregarded Crap"

And you were doing so well in your previous post - you were actually beginning to show a few signs of independent thought for a change. Still - I suppose it's a matter of Baby Steps. You obviously need that same old crutch to fall back on when you haven't got a clue about what it all means.

FourPart;1493120 wrote: Once again - the quote in its entirety:

“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 keyword here is "BUT"


No, the keyword is "if".

Up as far as "(A beginning suggests a Creator)" I would agree. However, as is typical of Brown, he uses unfounded suppositions as 'facts'. A beginning suggests nothing more than there being a beginning. It doesn't suggest the origin or any cause of the beginning whatsoever.


What are the unfounded suppositions?

As I said, cherry picking sections of a quote to suit his own purposes. Creationism adopts the view of the Universe being a closed system. Hawking merely says that if it were such, then one might suppose there could be a creator. However, as it has been proved that it is NOT a closed system, and is expanding, then the initial condition is not true - "What place, then, for a creator?". It is the convenient omission of the quantification that takes the quote out of context. He had clearly tried to make it appear that Hawking was agreeing with the existence of a creator when, in actual fact he was making the case against it.


Whether it is closed or open is irrelevant. 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.

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

What a load of BS we get from Pahu. It is more wishful thinking on his part. Is he a wanna be.

Pahu;1493144 wrote: No, the keyword is "if".


As you wish. If would be perfectly applicable as a keyword as it demonstrates that the condition is not true. It is NOT self contained.

What are the unfounded suppositions?
I'm not even going to go there - Everything that Brown spouts is unfounded supposition. The starting point is that everything is based on the unfounded supposition that God created everything. There is no evidence for the existence of a God, therefore that much is, by definition, unfounded supposition. That the supposed existence of an unfounded supposition was then responsible for creating anything is further supposition, and anything following.

Whether it is closed or open is irrelevant. 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.
On the contrary. It is VERY relevant as the claim made would only apply within a closed system, which the Universe is not.

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.
What makes you think that evolutionists have anything to do with open or closed systems? Evolution refers to Biology, not Cosmology. It's like saying Pastry Chef claim that diesel engines are more fuel efficient. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

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.
No violations? Is that so?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... cs-broken/

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.


All systems have tendency to order or disorder. A simple molecule, for instance, is very ordered. Water. 2 atoms of Hydrogen + 1 of Oxygen - supposedly formed by all 3 of those atoms randomly appearing in the circumstances of being present at the precise moment that a spark to compound them occurred. Who would have thought it possible. The odds of anything like that happening must be astronomical - yet it happens all the time. Order from disorder.

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.




Once again you are confusing Cosmology with Biology. However, you do go on to describe quite well how evolution works, with a perfect example. When excessively exposed to the sun mutations occur, and as you say more often than not these are detrimental. The mutations that are detrimental die off. However, those few that prove beneficial not only survive but thrive & live to pass on their genes to the next generation. One way that this happens with sunlight on the skin is with the formation of Melanin, which darkens the skin to filter the harmful radiation out. This is why those in hot countries have darker skin, while those in colder climates have paler skin & tend to burn easier. It is also demonstrated when a person gets a tan. Evolution in action.

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


Creationists seem to go a great deal by their cherry picking from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics without fully understanding it. As is typical with their cherry picking they simply take a small phrase from the greater story & warp it to suit their own agenda. There is a lot more to the 2nd Law than the limited phrase Creationists try to rely on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_la ... modynamics

Furthermore, as Creationists rely so much on the 2nd law, surely they must know something about the other laws of Thermodynamics? So tell me about the 1st Law - or the 3rd - or the 4th. Any idea? I doubt it.

If you fancy listening to something with an open mind, try taking a look at this. It's quite lengthy, but I got really into it.

FourPart;1493210 wrote: As you wish.



I'm not even going to go there - Everything that Brown spouts is unfounded supposition.


So you are saying this statement by Brown in an unfounded supposition?: "One product of radioactive decay within rocks is helium, a light gas."

The starting point is that everything is based on the unfounded supposition that God created everything. There is no evidence for the existence of a God, therefore that much is, by definition, unfounded supposition. That the supposed existence of an unfounded supposition was then responsible for creating anything is further supposition, and anything following.


Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.

Pahu;1493218 wrote:

Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.


So, where do you get this supposition that there was nothing at some time?

Certainly not from the Bible

LarsMac;1493219 wrote: So, where do you get this supposition that there was nothing at some time?

Certainly not from the Bible


Experience from observation. Before the universe existed it did not exist. The definition of "universe" is everything that exists. Before everything existed it did not exist, which leaves nothing from which is appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefore the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.

Pahu;1493222 wrote: Experience from observation. Before the universe existed it did not exist. The definition of "universe" is everything that exists. Before everything existed it did not exist, which leaves nothing from which is appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefore the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.


So are we to suppose that before the creation of the universe (everything that exists) The creator existed within this nothingness ? With what did he create the universe if only nothing existed. Did the creator have a creator.

No less logical

But science directs us to there being a path back to a singularity at the point of the Big bang. The science shows this. The mathematics show this. There is nothing to suggest YOUR science can refute this other than a forlorn hope of a spiritual answer. Your only reference is "Let there be light" and from there on, you invent the "facts" to justify the belief.

Snowfire;1493224 wrote: So are we to suppose that before the creation of the universe (everything that exists) The creator existed within this nothingness ? With what did he create the universe if only nothing existed. Did the creator have a creator. No less logical.


You are comparing material with spiritual. God is spiritual. The universe is material. God has always existed. The universe had a beginning.

But science directs us to there being a path back to a singularity at the point of the Big bang. The science shows this. The mathematics show this. There is nothing to suggest YOUR science can refute this other than a forlorn hope of a spiritual answer. Your only reference is "Let there be light" and from there on, you invent the "facts" to justify the belief.


Big Bang?

Dark Thoughts

Missing Mass. Between 1969 and 1998, virtually all big bang theorists said that the rapidly expanding universe must have enough mass to prevent all matter from flying apart; otherwise, matter would not have come together to form stars and galaxies. Estimates of the universe’s actual mass was always 10–20% of the needed amount. They reasoned that since the big bang theory was correct, the missing mass had to exist.u

Dark Matter. One would expect that the rotational velocities of stars around the center of a spiral galaxy would decrease the farther a star is from that center. However, since 1933, it has been known that those velocities are roughly constant beyond the galaxy’s central bulge. (This discovery gives great insight into how and when the universe began, but contradicts the way big-bang advocates think galaxies formed.) To explain these almost constant velocities, those advocates have told us since 1975 that (1) an invisible form of matter, called “dark matter, must surround and permeate galaxies, and (2) five times more dark matter than normal matter should even be in the room where you are sitting. No direct measurements show that dark matter exists.v

Dark Energy. Big bang theorists have struck again by devising something new and imaginary to prop up their theory. Prior to 1998, the big bang theory predicted that the universe’s expansion must be slowing, just as a ball thrown upward must slow as it moves away from Earth. For decades, cosmologists tried to measure this deceleration. Then in 1998, a shocking discovery was made and confirmed. The universe’s expansion is not decelerating; it is accelerating!a Therefore, to protect the big bang theory, something again had to be invented. Some energy source that overpowers gravity must continually accelerate stars and galaxies away from each other. That energy, naturally enough, is called dark energy. Again, an important discovery that gives insight into how the universe actually began was effectively lost by a faulty explanation: dark energy.

“Dark matter was created to make spiral galaxies spin correctly after a big bang.

“Missing mass was created to hold the universe together, and “dark energy was created to push (actually accelerate) the universe apart. None of these have been seen or measured,v even with the world’s best telescopes and sophisticated experiments. However, we are told that 95% of the universe is invisible—either dark matter (25%) or dark energy (70%). As respected cosmologist, Jim Peebles, admitted, “It’s an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe are hypothetical.w Other authorities have said that “dark matter and “dark energy “serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance.u Few realize that these mystical concepts were devised to preserve the big bang theory. It is much like the supposed “missing link that should exist between apes and man if man evolved from some apelike animal. Direct evidence does not exist.

History records other shocking discoveries that caused astronomers to assume aspects of the universe that they could not see or measure—a common practice in cosmology. Planets appeared to sometimes move backwards. This led to the belief, from A.D. 150 to 1543, that planets must revolve about the earth on epicycles—wheels that carried planets and rode on the circumferences of other wheels. As more was learned about planetary motion, more epicycles were required to support that theory. Those cosmologists said, “After all, those wheels must be there, because that would explain the strange movements of planets. Without direct observations or measurements, such beliefs are completely unscientific. History is repeating itself with “missing mass, “dark matter, “dark energy—and an often uncritical public. Notice that these strange ideas make no predictions, a sure sign that they are scientifically weak.

Instead of cluttering textbooks and the public’s imagination with authoritative sounding statements about things for which no direct evidence exists, wouldn’t it be better to admit that the big bang theory is faulty? Yes, but big bang theorists want to maintain their reputations, careers, funding, and worldview. If the big bang is discarded, only one credible explanation remains for the origin of the universe and everything in it. That thought sends shudders down the spines of many evolutionists.

Below are listed some evidences that are contrary to the big bang theory. “Chemical Evolution Theory on page 381 describes four errors in the big bang theory that required major revisions since 1946. Each revision rejected what had been assumed without direct evidence and taught for years until calculations showed those assumptions were false. Pages 366–416 explain why the 68 heaviest chemical elements would not form after a big bang. Pages 422–435 lay out the clear evidence for the correct expansion, or “stretching out, of the universe.

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.]

Many objects with high redshifts seem connected, or associated, with objects having low redshifts. They could not be traveling at such different velocities and stay connected for long. [See "Connected Galaxies" and Galaxy Clusters on page 43.] For example, many quasars have very high redshifts, and yet they statistically cluster with galaxies having low redshifts.d Some quasars seem to be connected to galaxies by threads of gas.e Many quasar redshifts are so great that the massive quasars would need to have formed too soon after the big bang—a contradiction of the theory.f

Finally, redshifted light from galaxies has some strange features inconsistent with the Doppler effect. If redshifts are from objects moving away from Earth, one would expect redshifts to have continuous values. Instead, redshifts tend to cluster at specific, evenly-spaced values.g Much remains to be learned about redshifts.



CMB. All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.h

Matter in the universe is highly concentrated into galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters—as far as the most powerful telescopes can see.i Because the CMB is so uniform, many thought it came from evenly spread matter soon after a big bang. But such uniformly distributed matter would hardly gravitate in any direction; even after tens of billions of years, galaxies and much larger structures would not evolve. In other words, the big bang did not produce the CMB.j [See pages 441–442.]

Helium. Contrary to what is commonly taught, the big bang theory does not explain the amount of helium in the universe; the theory was adjusted to fit the amount of helium.k Ironically, the lack of helium in certain types of stars (B type stars)l and the presence of beryllium and boron in “older starsm contradict the big bang theory.

A big bang would produce only hydrogen, helium, and a trace of lithium, so the first generation of stars to somehow form after a big bang should consist only of those elements. Some of these stars should still exist, but despite extensive searches, none have been found.n

Two Lithium Problems. The total amount of lithium seen in and outside our galaxy is only a third of what the big bang theory predicts.o Also, “old stars contain one-quarter to one-half as much lithium-7 (made of three protons and four neutrons) as theory predicts and contain 1,000 times more lithium-6 (three protons and three neutrons) than expected [by the big bang theory].p

Other Problems. If the big bang occurred, we should not see massive galaxies or quasars at such great distances, but they are seen. [See “Distant Galaxies on page 427.] Nor should a big bang produce rotating bodiesq such as galaxies and galaxy clusters. Also, a large volume of the universe should not be—but evidently is—moving sideways, almost perpendicular to the direction of apparent expansion.r

For every charged particle in the universe, the big bang should have produced an identical particle but with the opposite electrical charge.s (For example, the negatively charged electron’s antiparticle is the positively charged positron.) Only trivial amounts of this antimatter have ever been detected, even in other galaxies.t

Also, if a big bang occurred, what caused the bang? Stars with enough mass become black holes, so not even light can escape their enormous gravity. How then could anything escape the trillions upon trillions of times greater gravity caused by concentrating all the universe’s mass in a “cosmic egg that existed before a big bang?x

If the big bang theory is correct, one can calculate the age of the universe. This age turns out to be younger than objects in the universe whose ages were based on other evolutionary theories. Because this is logically impossible, one or both sets of theories must be incorrect.y All these observations make it doubtful that a big bang occurred.z

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 56. Big Bang?

Pahu;1493222 wrote: Experience from observation. Before the universe existed it did not exist. The definition of "universe" is everything that exists. Before everything existed it did not exist, which leaves nothing from which is appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefore the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.


So, you were around before the Universe existed to see that, were you?

Snowfire;1493224 wrote: So are we to suppose that before the creation of the universe (everything that exists) The creator existed within this nothingness ? With what did he create the universe if only nothing existed. Did the creator have a creator.


I view the Creator (G-d) as the one who created our concept of 'time'. He is not subject to his creations. When discussing G-d it is fruitless to apply the concept of 'time'.

Snowfire;1493224 wrote: But science directs us to there being a path back to a singularity at the point of the Big bang. The science shows this. The mathematics show this. There is nothing to suggest YOUR science can refute this other than a forlorn hope of a spiritual answer. Your only reference is "Let there be light" and from there on, you invent the "facts" to justify the belief.


So science explores the results of G-ds creation. I suppose that is just what he would like, though he kinda keeps such answers close to his vest.

I wondered how long it would take before he got back to his false dichotomy of something not being natural, therefore is has to be supernatural. Everything that happens is natural. Just because we don't understand how something works doesn't make it supernatural - that is just the realm of superstition. We don't understand fully how electricity works. That doesn't make it supernatural, but if a caveman were to see you switch on a lightbulb the only way he would be able to explain it would be that it was magic & that you were a God.

There was a beginning. That much is agreed. Nobody knows for certain how it came about. All we know is that it did come about. Therefore it is natural that it happened. The rational among us believe the increasing amount of evidence we have to indicate the concept of a Big Bang. The Creationist believes in the Magical concept of a Fairy Tale.

I came across this on YouTube this morning. Looks like a pretty interesting example of a transitional being between fish & amphibian. After all, what use would a fish have for legs?

Lead and Helium Diffusion




Lead diffuses (or leaks) from zircon crystals at known rates that increase with temperature. Because these crystals are found at different depths in the Earth, those at greater depths and temperatures should have less lead. If the Earth’s crust is just a fraction of the age claimed by evolutionists, measurable differences in the lead content of zircons should exist in the top 4,000 meters. Instead, no measurable difference is found (a).

Similar conclusions are reached based on the helium content in these same zircon crystals (b). Because helium escapes so rapidly and so much helium is still in zircons, they (and the Earth’s crust) must be less than 10,000 years old (c). Furthermore, the radioactive decay that produced all that helium must have happened quite rapidly, because the helium is trapped in young zircons.

a. “Taken together, these results strongly suggest that there has been little or no differential Pb loss which can be attributed to the higher temperatures existing at greater depths. Robert V. Gentry et al., “Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment, Science, 16 April 1982, p. 296.

Robert V. Gentry, “Letters, Physics Today, October 1982, pp. 13–14.

b. Robert V. Gentry, “Letters, Physics Today, April 1983, p. 13.

c. “In fact, considering the Precambrian age of the granite cores, our results show an almost phenomenal amount of He has been retained at higher temperatures, and the reason for this certainly needs further investigation ... Robert V. Gentry et al., “Differential Helium Retention in Zircons, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 9, No. 10, October 1982, p. 1130.

Robert V. Gentry, personal communication, 24 February 1984.

D. Russell Humphreys et al., “Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 2003), pp. 175–195.

From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown

"Disregarded Crap" (As usual)

FourPart;1493304 wrote: "Disregarded Crap" (As usual)


Evidence free denial of facts, as usual.

Pahu;1493311 wrote: Evidence free denial of facts, as usual.


Sorry, Dude, but it is your posts that lack evidence.

Off to Greece until May 15.

Simply because we've seen the garbage before, over & over again. You must have published the entire book in this thread a couple of hundred times. Perpetually spamming it doesn't make it any less crap. It's like the crap that comes through my letterbox every day. As soon as I see it's printed on glossy paper I known straight away it's spamming crap from the local Pizza Parlour. I don't need to read it to know what it's about. Once I know what it is it just goes in the bin. Your posts are like those leaflets - Glossy paper - all the multi colour postings - no doubt intended to attract attention. Well, to that degree it does. It cries out "Here's a load of crap that has to have colours to attract the attention of the weak minded, such as Pahu - anyone with a mind of their own can merely disregard". You always use the same format - same layout - same everything. Why? Quite simply because you have provided no input of your own. No independent thought. Just copy & paste. Even 2 year olds can do that these days - and they don't have any notion of the content of what it is they're pasting either - plus they're attracted to pretty multi colours as well. Check out REAL scientific papers with REAL evidence. They actually look quite boring. They don't have to use crayons - they don't have to try to fool anyone with misquotes & preconceptions. They just list their evidence in simple text, including cross references for verification of their facts. They invite peer reviews. They invite critique, with no preconditions. These are the GENUINE scientists. Not someone who comes up with a glorified colouring book telling tales of unfounded fantasy.

Have you read up on Robert V. Gentry at all? It doesn't take much. Just type Robert v Gentry into Google, and there's loads of entries all about him. Many from the usual Creationist sites, but mainly Scientific sites where he is considered to be just another nutjob - using "Miracles" as evidence for anything he can't explain.

Wikipedia on Robert V. Gentry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_V._Gentry

A Peer Review of Gentry:

"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

And another:

Review: Creation's Tiny Mystery | NCSE

More rebuttal:

Unfounded Creationist Claims about Radio Halos

And more:

Robert Gentry, Creationist

The list goes on & on.

FourPart;1493342 wrote: Simply because we've seen the garbage before, over & over again. You must have published the entire book in this thread a couple of hundred times. Perpetually spamming it doesn't make it any less crap. It's like the crap that comes through my letterbox every day. As soon as I see it's printed on glossy paper I known straight away it's spamming crap from the local Pizza Parlour. I don't need to read it to know what it's about. Once I know what it is it just goes in the bin. Your posts are like those leaflets - Glossy paper - all the multi colour postings - no doubt intended to attract attention. Well, to that degree it does. It cries out "Here's a load of crap that has to have colours to attract the attention of the weak minded, such as Pahu - anyone with a mind of their own can merely disregard". You always use the same format - same layout - same everything. Why? Quite simply because you have provided no input of your own. No independent thought. Just copy & paste. Even 2 year olds can do that these days - and they don't have any notion of the content of what it is they're pasting either - plus they're attracted to pretty multi colours as well. Check out REAL scientific papers with REAL evidence. They actually look quite boring. They don't have to use crayons - they don't have to try to fool anyone with misquotes & preconceptions. They just list their evidence in simple text, including cross references for verification of their facts. They invite peer reviews. They invite critique, with no preconditions. These are the GENUINE scientists. Not someone who comes up with a glorified colouring book telling tales of unfounded fantasy.


You are ignoring the fact that genuine scientists confirm Brown's conclusions. They are:

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

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:

American journal of science

Astronomical journal

Astrophysics and space science

Astrophysical journal

Bioscience

Geology

Icarus

Journal of Geology

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Nature

New scientist

Physics Today

Physical review

Physical review d

Physical review letters

Science

Space science reviews

The American Journal of Science and Arts

Oh, do, please, demonstrate for us us exactly how these genuine scientists, and these genuine scientific publications actually confirm Brown's conclusions.

FourPart;1493343 wrote: Have you read up on Robert V. Gentry at all? It doesn't take much. Just type Robert v Gentry into Google, and there's loads of entries all about him. Many from the usual Creationist sites, but mainly Scientific sites where he is considered to be just another nutjob - using "Miracles" as evidence for anything he can't explain.

Wikipedia on Robert V. Gentry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_V._Gentry

A Peer Review of Gentry:

"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

And another:

Review: Creation's Tiny Mystery | NCSE

More rebuttal:

Unfounded Creationist Claims about Radio Halos

And more:

Robert Gentry, Creationist

The list goes on & on.


All anti-creationist, pro-evolutionist sites. Do you detect a bias here? Here are the facts:



Earth Science Associates

Polonium Halos: Unrefuted Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation!

Fingerprints of Creation



Did you know that scientific evidence abounds to support the biblical accounts of creation and the flood? Were you aware that reports outlining this evidence passed peer review, and were published in the open scientific literature? Have you heard that, decades later, this evidence still stands unrefuted by the scientific community?

An Overview

Etched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence [a half-life of three minutes].

The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.

A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.

An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation.



Replies to Objections

Every question regarding the validity or implications of this polonium-halo evidence has been systematically dealt with, in our published reports and in various discussions with those holding differing views. We invite you to peruse the points we have raised in our exchanges, consider them, and decide for yourself the truth of the matter.

Of particular interest will be our recent discussion with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) regarding the validity of our work.

In the Exchanges section of our website we've posted our letter to Dr. K. R. Walker, requesting the references to successful granite synthesis experiments that UT's Dr. Larry Taylor had referred to. We also have posted two letters from Dr. Brent Dalrymple that refer to the unrefuted Polonium evidence for the creation of granite.

Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences

The Academy has vehemently opposed creation science, even claiming that the evidence for creation has been scientifically invalidated. We have repeatedly challenged the Academy to publicly explain where the polonium-halo evidence for creation has ever been scientifically invalidated. For over 15 years, they have refused to even try, for they know that their statement is insupportable when it comes to the polonium-halo evidence.

We have posted here letters and other documents pertaining to our challenge to the National Academy of Science.

Reports

Our published reports date back to the 1960's. Twenty of these reports can be downloaded free of charge from this web site. A number of these also appear in the appendix to our book, Creation's Tiny Mystery.

Every question regarding the validity or implications of the polonium-halo evidence for creation has been systematically dealt with in our published reports. Every proposal for an evolutionary origin of polonium radiohalos has been systematically and experimentally falsified. No hypothetical, naturalistic scenario has yet been suggested that can account for Creation's "tiny mystery" of the polonium halo.

Of course, you can find claims to the contrary on the internet and elsewhere. But if these claims had any real substance, they would have passed peer review and been published in the open scientific literature. The fact that they have not been, or have themselves been experimentally falsified, demonstrates the fact that this unique evidence for Creation still stands unrefuted.

Some of our newest research concerns astronomy and cosmology. Our findings provide a radically new model of the cosmos while also showing why the Big Bang Theory is fatally flawed. For more on this topic, please see our sister site, Orion Foundation: Exposing the Flaws in the Big Bang Theory.

Tax-Funded arXiv Engaged in Religious Discrimination

Our sister site, Orion Foundation: Exposing the Flaws in the Big Bang Theory, has an entire section on this topic. Basically, what happened is that we posted ten papers outlining fatal flaws in the Big Bang theory on the arXiv, an internet service hosted at the time by Los Alamos National Laboratory. The arXiv distributes physics papers worldwide, and we had previously posted papers there with no problem. This time, when those in charge of the arXiv discovered that our papers very clearly outlined the fallacies of the Big Bang, and were supportive of a model of the universe that harmonizes with Genesis, the papers were removed. After we posted them again, they were removed a second time, and our password was revoked.

You can read the subsequent letters that were exchanged by clicking the links on the page "Documentation of Censorship by the Los Alamos National Laboratory arXiv Staff", a page on our sister site.

The arXiv is funded by tax funds. It is therefore inappropriate for the arXiv to discriminate on the basis of religion against scientists who do not ascribe to evolution.

Videos/DVDs

One of the easiest ways to learn more about polonium halos and similar evidence for creation is to watch our two videos, Fingerprints of Creation and The Young Age of the Earth. Both are available on VHS cassettes and DVD, and both can now be seen immediately over the internet as a free video stream.

Book

Our book, Creation's Tiny Mystery, by scientist Robert V. Gentry, chronicles the evidence of polonium halos, and the challenges of proposing a scientifically-based creation model of the Earth amidst the widespread acceptance by most scientists of ancient, evolutionary models.

The entire book may now be read online, but you'll also want the convenience of having a printed copy to peruse.

Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation - Polonium Halos in Granite and Coal - Earth Science Associates

LarsMac;1493361 wrote: Oh, do, please, demonstrate for us us exactly how these genuine scientists, and these genuine scientific publications actually confirm Brown's conclusions.


That information can be found here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Index Letter A

Pahu;1493364 wrote: That information can be found here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Index Letter A


Seriously?

That's your response?

LarsMac;1493366 wrote: Seriously?

That's your response?


Yes!

I won't go through it all again, but in a previous post I went through every one of those names, one by one, including references to my sources, and apart from a few that no information could be found about there was a collection of characters with criminal records for fraud, debunked creationists working under the name of Science shown to be using fave 'evidence', as well as a variety of out of context quotes & blatant misquotes.

The only sites that supported Gentry were the same Creationist sites - none of which were providing any of their own insight - just mainly copies & pastes of contents from other Creationist sites (something which is typical of Creationists - as you clearly demonstrate). The scientific sites, however, provide independent rebuttal, including supporting evidence for what they say & explaining why. The Creationists do nothing of the sort. By definition there is nothing scientific in Creationism. Gentry's explanation of why there is no evidence to support his claims is that the very lack of evidence is evidence of it being due to a Miracle.

Science, by definition, has to have the evidence first. That is to say it has to be observed. It exists. Only then is a theory formed that fits the evidence. Experiments are then carried out in order to attempt to recreate situations, wherever possible. They make predictions. Then when new evidence comes to light if it supports the prediction it strengthens the validity of the theory. If it doesn't, then the theory is reviewed & changed accordingly. Science recognises that we don't know everything. Creationism, on the other hand, takes a preconception based on the folklore of a single religion formed from magic, mirrors, ignorance & superstition and then looks for anything that might support that preconception, ignoring or denying the existence of anything that doesn't fit with their dreams.

Top Creationist "Scientists" constantly promote their qualifications. More often than not these qualifications are bogus or awarded for some totally different subject than what they claim to be an authority in. Brown, for example has a PhD in Engineering. For all I know he may well be a brilliant authority in the field of engineering. However, he has NO qualifications of training in the world of Geo-Physics, Biology, Cosmology, Quantum Physics or Bacteriology - all of which he claims to be some kind of expert in. You simply do not find REAL Scientists who are qualified in their field who recognise Creationism. Why? Because they know that there is a logical reason for everything, and that logical reason does not include Magic.

FourPart;1493383 wrote: I won't go through it all again, but in a previous post I went through every one of those names, one by one, including references to my sources, and apart from a few that no information could be found about there was a collection of characters with criminal records for fraud, debunked creationists working under the name of Science shown to be using fave 'evidence', as well as a variety of out of context quotes & blatant misquotes.


Where is evidence supporting your accusations?

The only sites that supported Gentry were the same Creationist sites - none of which were providing any of their own insight - just mainly copies & pastes of contents from other Creationist sites (something which is typical of Creationists - as you clearly demonstrate). The scientific sites, however, provide independent rebuttal, including supporting evidence for what they say & explaining why. The Creationists do nothing of the sort. By definition there is nothing scientific in Creationism. Gentry's explanation of why there is no evidence to support his claims is that the very lack of evidence is evidence of it being due to a Miracle.


Remember:

"Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences



The Academy has vehemently opposed creation science, even claiming that the evidence for creation has been scientifically invalidated. We have repeatedly challenged the Academy to publicly explain where the polonium-halo evidence for creation has ever been scientifically invalidated. For over 15 years, they have refused to even try, for they know that their statement is insupportable when it comes to the polonium-halo evidence.

We have posted here letters and other documents pertaining to our challenge to the National Academy of Science."

Robert V. Gentry is a nuclear physicist.

Science, by definition, has to have the evidence first. That is to say it has to be observed. It exists. Only then is a theory formed that fits the evidence. Experiments are then carried out in order to attempt to recreate situations, wherever possible.


Well, that leaves out evolution, doesn't it, since it supposedly happened in the past and cannot be reproduced. Evolution and creation are world-views, not science. However, the facts of science disprove evolution as I have demonstrated.

They make predictions. Then when new evidence comes to light if it supports the prediction it strengthens the validity of the theory. If it doesn't, then the theory is reviewed & changed accordingly. Science recognises that we don't know everything. Creationism, on the other hand, takes a preconception based on the folklore of a single religion formed from magic, mirrors, ignorance & superstition and then looks for anything that might support that preconception, ignoring or denying the existence of anything that doesn't fit with their dreams.


False! The modern scientific method was founded by Christian scientists such as:

Antiseptic Surgery Joseph Lister

Bacteriology Louis Pasteur

Calculus Isaac Newton

Celestial Mechanics Johannes Kepler

Chemistry Robert Boyle

Comparative Anatomy Georges Cuvier

Dimensional Analysis Lord Rayleigh

Dynamics Isaac Newton

Electronics John Ambrose Fleming

Electrodynamics James Clerk Maxwell

Electromagnetics Michael Faraday

Energetics Lord Kelvin

Entomology of Living Insects Henri Fabre

Field Theory James Clerk Maxwell

Fluid Mechanics George Stokes

Galactic Astronomy Sir William Hershel

Gas Dynamics Robert Boyle

Genetics Gregor Mendel

Glacial Geology Louis Agassiz

Gynaecology James Simpson

Hydrography Matthew Maury

Hydrostatics Blaise Pascal

Ichthyology Louis Agassiz

Isotopic Chemistry William Ramsey

Model Analysis Lord Rayleigh

Natural History John Ray

Non-Euclidean Geometry Bernard Riemann

Oceanography Matthew Maury

Optical Mineralogy David Brewster

Christianity and the beginnings of modern science

Top Creationist "Scientists" constantly promote their qualifications. More often than not these qualifications are bogus or awarded for some totally different subject than what they claim to be an authority in. Brown, for example has a PhD in Engineering. For all I know he may well be a brilliant authority in the field of engineering. However, he has NO qualifications of training in the world of Geo-Physics, Biology, Cosmology, Quantum Physics or Bacteriology - all of which he claims to be some kind of expert in. You simply do not find REAL Scientists who are qualified in their field who recognise Creationism. Why? Because they know that there is a logical reason for everything, and that logical reason does not include Magic.


Walt Brown is not only an engineer, but is also quite knowledgeable in many other disciplines as well including geology and paleontology:

Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.

For those who wish to know more about Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco) devotes a chapter to Brown. It may be read by clicking here.

The Center for Scientific Creation

Getting a Masters Degree

Brown chose to transfer into a technically oriented branch of the Army—the Ordnance Corps. This branch dealt with the Army’s equipment, and he felt sure he could find interesting things there.

He was excited to learn that the Ordnance Corps would send him to get a master’s degree. Engineering fascinated him, so he went to study mechanical engineering at New Mexico State University. At New Mexico State, he found that his mechanical engineering courses were interesting but not difficult, so he also took many physics and math courses.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting a Masters Degree

Getting into the Creation Movement

Brown had been teaching at the War College for several years and was offered a splendid job as the Director of the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory near Boston. He seriously considered this job because it would put him around experts in geology and geophysics, even if they were evolutionists. Brown was now very interested in geology because of his study of the global flood. His investigation of creation and the flood had started as scientific curiosity, but as he saw the implications, it grew into a passionate hobby.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting into the Creation Movement

Seminars and Debates

After retiring from the military, Dr. Brown moved to the Chicago area and began giving creation seminars and debating evolutionists. He prepared strenuously for his seminars and debates. He always assumed that several people in the audience knew more about a topic than he did, and he didn’t want to disappoint them. He forced himself to be very broad because people would ask questions concerning the Bible, genetics, astronomy, physics, geology, or chemistry. Dr. Brown’s training as an engineer gave him the tools to explore many disciplines. Engineers ask questions and look for realistic solutions. By definition, engineering—sometimes called applied science—deals with making science useful to people. And that is exactly what Dr. Brown did in his seminars.

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

Crossroads

He decided to devote himself to studying geology from the evolutionists’ perspective. He realized that most creationists don’t study what the evolutionists are saying—seeing their reasoning and going through their calculations. He knew that a good lawyer knows the other case as well as the opposing lawyer knows it. A solid knowledge of geology would help him build a stronger case for creation.

So Peggy found a teaching job and Walt signed up to study geology at Arizona State University. Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the world’s leading geologists, taught there. Several years earlier in 1981, Dr. Brown had given a lecture on creation at Arizona State after the university had been unable to find an evolutionist debater. Days before the lecture, Dr. Dietz asked if he could comment after the lecture. He talked for ten minutes giving his reasons why he thought Dr. Brown was wrong. Then Dr. Brown challenged him to a written, purely scientific debate—no religion allowed. Earlier that day when Dr. Brown had lunch with Dr. Dietz, Dr. Dietz had flatly refused to participate in a written debate. But now that he was in front of this large audience, he agreed. The audience applauded and the newspaper featured the upcoming written debate.

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

Learning Geology

Now that Dr. Brown would be walking the halls of the geology department, he decided he had better say hello to Dr. Dietz. By now, Dr. Brown knew exactly who Robert S. Dietz was. He was the leading atheist of the Southwest, completely hostile to creationists. He was also a world-famous geologist, one of the founders of the plate tectonic theory—one of the most significant theories of the twentieth century in the opinion of most scientists.

Dr. Brown went to Dr. Dietz’s office and told him he was there to learn geology from Dr. Dietz’s perspective. Oddly enough, that was the beginning of their friendship. Dr. Dietz offered to meet with Dr. Brown each Wednesday afternoon for several hours of discussion. They spent hundreds of hours discussing geology, comparing Dr. Dietz’s plate tectonic theory and Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory. After their private sessions, they went down to the Wednesday afternoon geology forum and listened to a visiting geology speaker. Sometimes Dr. Dietz would invite Dr. Brown out to eat with the guest speaker.

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

Geology

Dr. Brown spent several years studying geology. His background in engineering gave him a strong grasp of the math and physics involved in geological processes. He found that while geologists are skilled at describing what they see, most don’t pause to figure out the mechanics and the feasibility of their theories. They talk about long periods of time and think that the sheer amount of time glosses over the mechanical difficulties of what they are describing. They don’t concentrate on energy, forces, causes, and effects. But Dr. Brown brought a fresh mindset to his study of geology. He thought as an engineer, a mathematician firmly grounded in physics.

There is also a not-so-subtle arrogance in the entrenched geology establishment. They resent an “outsider intruding in their field. This sounds similar to the criticism that Lord Kelvin received when he waded into the geological age controversy with the geologists of his day. Interestingly, the founders of modern geology, men who have contributed greatly to conventional geological thinking, were not even trained as geologists.

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

Dr. Brown’s move to Phoenix was a crucial turning point in his life. If he had continued with the seminar work full-time, as he had originally hoped, he wouldn’t have had time to study geology and work on his book. Although his seminars had been useful in getting out the creation message, Dr. Brown’s book has reached a much wider audience.

His book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, more closely resembles an encyclopedia than any other kind of book. Here he summarizes the evidences for creation and explains his hydroplate theory of the flood. Based on this theory, he has found that twenty-five major features of the earth can be explained logically. Scientists who have taken the time to understand the theory have often converted to flood geology, because Dr. Brown gives them a scientifically acceptable approach that is intellectually satisfying. Scientists are struck by diverse problems the hydroplate theory solves.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World

Pahu;1493392 wrote: Where is evidence supporting your accusations?

Remember:

"Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences



The Academy has vehemently opposed creation science, even claiming that the evidence for creation has been scientifically invalidated. We have repeatedly challenged the Academy to publicly explain where the polonium-halo evidence for creation has ever been scientifically invalidated. For over 15 years, they have refused to even try, for they know that their statement is insupportable when it comes to the polonium-halo evidence.


With any new claim, the onus is on the claimant to prove their case. When it was considered Gentry was asked to detail the sources of his samples. As he had not found them himself, but had sourced them from 3rd parties he had no record of where or when they had been found. Furthermore the samples had been acquired from different locations at different times. When such information cannot be provided, the alleged 'evidence' can be disregarded. For instance, I own a genuine meteorite. This much has been confirmed. It's no big deal. To me it's just a curiosity. However, if I were to claim that this was originally a rock from the surface of Mars, it has to be admitted that it could well have been, but without evidence to that fact the claim is meaningless.





We have posted here letters and other documents pertaining to our challenge to the National Academy of Science."


Just as with your own style, repetitive unfounded arguments, no matter how often they are repeated, don't make them any more valid. The conditions claimed are not supported. These conditions are a prerequisite for any proposition to be considered. When the conditions are not met then they are not worthy of taking the claims any further.

Robert V. Gentry is a nuclear physicist.
And just what does that have to do with geology? Besides - he is NOT a Nuclear Physicist, he is merely a Physicist who also happened to work on the Nuclear Weapons Research project in the 1930s. Remember, it wasn't until well after that time that Nuclear Physics was even heard of. Anything else was a matter of make it up as you go along.

In the late 1970s, Gentry challenged the scientific community to synthesize "a hand-sized specimen of a typical biotite-bearing granite" as a test of his claims. The scientific response was dismissive. A geologist G. Brent Dalrymple stated:[1] "As far as I am concerned, Gentry's challenge is silly. ¦ He has proposed an absurd and inconclusive experiment to test a perfectly ridiculous and unscientific hypothesis that ignores virtually the entire body of geological knowledge."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_V._Gentry)

Well, that leaves out evolution, doesn't it, since it supposedly happened in the past and cannot be reproduced. Evolution and creation are world-views, not science. However, the facts of science disprove evolution as I have demonstrated.
You reckon? How about this, for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

False! The modern scientific method was founded by Christian scientists such as:

Antiseptic Surgery Joseph Lister

Bacteriology Louis Pasteur

Calculus Isaac Newton

Celestial Mechanics Johannes Kepler

Chemistry Robert Boyle

Comparative Anatomy Georges Cuvier

Dimensional Analysis Lord Rayleigh

Dynamics Isaac Newton

Electronics John Ambrose Fleming

Electrodynamics James Clerk Maxwell

Electromagnetics Michael Faraday

Energetics Lord Kelvin

Entomology of Living Insects Henri Fabre

Field Theory James Clerk Maxwell

Fluid Mechanics George Stokes

Galactic Astronomy Sir William Hershel

Gas Dynamics Robert Boyle

Genetics Gregor Mendel

Glacial Geology Louis Agassiz

Gynaecology James Simpson

Hydrography Matthew Maury

Hydrostatics Blaise Pascal

Ichthyology Louis Agassiz

Isotopic Chemistry William Ramsey

Model Analysis Lord Rayleigh

Natural History John Ray

Non-Euclidean Geometry Bernard Riemann

Oceanography Matthew Maury

Optical Mineralogy David Brewster


I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it was mere stupidity rather than deliberate deception that caused you to misread "Creation Science" as "Christian Science", as you have already demonstrated that you aren't up to much on actually reading & understanding things. I never said there was a conflict between being a Christian & being a Scientist. In fact the whole idea of the Creation & the Flood has actually got nothing to do with Christianity whatsoever, as it predates it by quite some time. Christianity is a teaching of moral philosophy rather than superstitious preconceptions. In fact, here's another one to add to your little list of Christian Scientists:

Natural History & Evolution - Charles Darwin

(Darwin was a devout Christian who had even originally intended on joining the Clergy).

Walt Brown is not only an engineer, but is also quite knowledgeable in many other disciplines as well including geology and paleontology:


Says who? Oh yes - says Brown - Therefore it must be true.

Everything else is "Disregarded Crap", not only because it's basically just more copying & pasting, but that it merely supports what I have already stated. I have not questioned his authority as an engineer. The fact remains that he has no qualifications or, indeed, any formal training in any of the relevant subjects on which he CLAIMS to be an authority. For a start off, he doesn't even seem to understand the difference between Evolution & Cosmology. The same goes for Geophysics. He even denies the existence of the Continental Drift, despite it being monitored daily by satellite imagry. He describes how mountains are all getting smaller through erosion, whereas mountains continue to have their growth rate recorded by laser measuring devices.

The claims that he makes are in total contradiction to all the data being gathered every day on an ongoing basis. This data is observable fact, yet because it goes against his unfounded hypothesis he either denies its existence or claims that the rest of the world's science, both now & throughout history are all wrong simply because it doesn't agree with him.

Excess Fluid Pressure




Abnormally high oil, gas, and water pressures exist within relatively permeable rock (a). If these fluids had been trapped more than 10,000 to 100,000 years ago, leakage would have dropped these pressures far below what they are today. This oil, gas, and water must have been trapped suddenly and recently (b).

a. “It is certain that at the present time large areas of the Gulf Coast are underlain by zones containing water under pressure almost high enough to float the overlying rocks. Parke A. Dickey, Calcutta R. Shriram, and William R. Paine, “Abnormal Pressures in Deep Wells of Southwestern Louisiana, Science, Vol. 160, No. 3828, 10 May 1968, p. 614.

b. “Some geologists find it difficult to understand how the great pressures found in some oil wells could be retained over millions of years. Creationists also use this currently puzzling situation as evidence that oil was formed less than 10,000 years ago. Stansfield, p. 82. [Stansfield had no alternative explanation.]

Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models, p. 341.

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown

"Disregarded Crap"

FourPart;1493609 wrote: "Disregarded Crap"


Disregarding facts.

Pahu;1493612 wrote: Disregarding facts.


No - disregarding crap.

I told you before. You're not providing anything new. You're just continually repasting the same old crap over & over again in the vain hope that eventually it will miraculously become true. If anyone was really interested in what you want to paste all they need to do is to scroll back a few posts. You have, after all, pasted the entire book in here multiple times over. There is nothing left to argue. All of the so called 'facts' has been shown to be unsubstantiated or totally false. The referred names in the famous list have all been shown to either be frauds, charlatans or even, on a couple of occasions, convicted criminals. Quotes from noted scientists have, on several occasions been proven to have been deliberately taken out of context. You are too predictable. Everything you have pasted so far has been rebutted, along with multiple independent sources. All you have to offer is continued pasting of the same old work of fiction. You are unable to form any argument for yourself - showing that you are incapable of any form of independent thought. When challenged you refuse to answer & continue to paste on totally unrelated matters. Every time you do it you're just making a bigger fool of yourself. This is why whenever you continue to paste the same of crap, you will get the same response - "Disregarded Crap".

FourPart;1493613 wrote: No - disregarding crap.

I told you before. You're not providing anything new. You're just continually repasting the same old crap over & over again in the vain hope that eventually it will miraculously become true. If anyone was really interested in what you want to paste all they need to do is to scroll back a few posts. You have, after all, pasted the entire book in here multiple times over. There is nothing left to argue. All of the so called 'facts' has been shown to be unsubstantiated or totally false. The referred names in the famous list have all been shown to either be frauds, charlatans or even, on a couple of occasions, convicted criminals. Quotes from noted scientists have, on several occasions been proven to have been deliberately taken out of context. You are too predictable. Everything you have pasted so far has been rebutted, along with multiple independent sources. All you have to offer is continued pasting of the same old work of fiction. You are unable to form any argument for yourself - showing that you are incapable of any form of independent thought. When challenged you refuse to answer & continue to paste on totally unrelated matters. Every time you do it you're just making a bigger fool of yourself. This is why whenever you continue to paste the same of crap, you will get the same response - "Disregarded Crap".


An excellent example of evidence free assertions and denial of the facts of science, which disprove evolution and prove creation. By the way, here is proof God exists:

Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.

Pahu;1493644 wrote: An excellent example of evidence free assertions and denial of the facts of science, which disprove evolution and prove creation. By the way, here is proof God exists:

Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.


Speaking of evidence-free assertions.

Where is your evidence for that statement?

LarsMac;1493645 wrote: Speaking of evidence-free assertions.

Where is your evidence for that statement?


It is self evident. Do you know of anything physically that does not have a beginning?

Pahu;1493648 wrote: It is self evident. Do you know of anything physically that does not have a beginning?


Energy

LarsMac;1493652 wrote: Energy


Since there was a time when nothing existed, wouldn't that include energy?

Pahu;1493655 wrote: Since there was a time when nothing existed, wouldn't that include energy?


That would be Evidence-free speculation.

What evidence do you have that even suggests that there was a time when nothing existed?

For that matter, define "nothing"

...

His famous "Anything that is not natural has to be supernatural" is a typical Creationist False Dichotomy. There is no such thing as Supernatural. If something exists, then it is natural that it exists. If one understands its existence then it is natural & understood. If one doesn't understand something, then it is still natural, only it is natural & not understood. Science doesn't understand Gravity. Science doesn't understand Electricity. Science doesn't understand a lot of things - in fact, the things it doesn't understand outnumbers that which it does understand by far. Otherwise there would be no reason to do any research. Because Science doesn't understand things such as Gravity & Electricity doesn't make them Supernatural. Furthermore, a typical Creationist's line is that "Evolution is only a theory". Well, so is Gravity. Does that mean it doesn't exist? Not so long ago witches were known to make magical potions which would magically kill or cure. That would be seen by the primitive superstitious masses as not being Natural, so had to be Supernatural. Later people came to learn of herbalism. Then people began to learn Homeopathy, where doses were so dilute they were thought that they couldn't possibly have any effect. How this works is still not understood, but it is generally accepted that it DOES work. However, it is also generally accepted that it has a physical reason. It is natural, whereas it was once considered Supernatural. The Supernatural is merely a term invented by those who don't want to admit their ignorance. Scientitsts admit their ignorance & continue to research & learn. Creationists are content to remain ignorant, because, as far as they are concerned, they have all the answers to the entire Universe contained in a single book, written thousands of years ago, compiled by stories passed down by word of mouth. Why, then, would they have any need to continue to learn anything? Everything they don't understand can simply be explained away as being Supernatural. Vaccines - Supernatural. Lightning - Supernatural. The Sun going around the Earth - Supernatural. Those little holes in the sky, that we call stars - Supernatural.

No doubt, if you follow your standard paste-pattern, before long you'll start quoting the famous second law of thermodynamics (entropy) summarised into a single sentence, when the entire law is far more complex & fills several chapters. However, a little while back I asked you if you knew any of the other laws of thermodynamics. You never answered, so I can only presume you don't have any idea. How about the first law? Come on - they're easy enough to Google - or does the fact that they are not cited by Brown mean that they don't exist? Oh - of course - you don't understand anything about them, therefore they're Supernatural.

LarsMac;1493658 wrote: That would be Evidence-free speculation.

What evidence do you have that even suggests that there was a time when nothing existed?

For that matter, define "nothing"


It is hard for me to believe you do not know the definition of nothing. Do you have access to a dictionary?

Since the universe had a beginning, and the definition of universe is everything that exists, then logically before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause, therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural proving the existence of God.

FourPart;1493681 wrote: His famous "Anything that is not natural has to be supernatural" is a typical Creationist False Dichotomy. There is no such thing as Supernatural. If something exists, then it is natural that it exists. If one understands its existence then it is natural & understood. If one doesn't understand something, then it is still natural, only it is natural & not understood.


Your assertions are based on evidence free assumptions.

Science doesn't understand Gravity. Science doesn't understand Electricity. Science doesn't understand a lot of things - in fact, the things it doesn't understand outnumbers that which it does understand by far. Otherwise there would be no reason to do any research. Because Science doesn't understand things such as Gravity & Electricity doesn't make them Supernatural.


True, but that is a far cry from the fact that before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.

Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.

Evidence for the Existence of God

Apologetics Press - Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists

AlwaysBeReady.com

The First Cause Argument

Arguments for God's Existence

Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Is There a God

Furthermore, a typical Creationist's line is that "Evolution is only a theory".


Wrong! Evolution is a scientifically disproved hypothesis. It is an erroneous worldview, not science.

The Supernatural is merely a term invented by those who don't want to admit their ignorance.


Wrong! supernatural means something that is not natural. Or attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature: a supernatural being.

Scientitsts admit their ignorance & continue to research & learn. Creationists are content to remain ignorant, because, as far as they are concerned, they have all the answers to the entire Universe contained in a single book, written thousands of years ago, compiled by stories passed down by word of mouth. Why, then, would they have any need to continue to learn anything? Everything they don't understand can simply be explained away as being Supernatural. Vaccines - Supernatural. Lightning - Supernatural. The Sun going around the Earth - Supernatural. Those little holes in the sky, that we call stars - Supernatural.


You are demonstrating a pathetic ignorance of the Bible. Christian scientists founded the modern scientific method in their examination of God's creation. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:



Scientific Facts in The Bible

Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki

King James Bible

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

No doubt, if you follow your standard paste-pattern, before long you'll start quoting the famous second law of thermodynamics (entropy) summarised into a single sentence, when the entire law is far more complex & fills several chapters. However, a little while back I asked you if you knew any of the other laws of thermodynamics. You never answered, so I can only presume you don't have any idea. How about the first law? Come on - they're easy enough to Google - or does the fact that they are not cited by Brown mean that they don't exist? Oh - of course - you don't understand anything about them, therefore they're Supernatural.


First Law of Thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics tells us 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 produce the much more complex organic (or living) portion of the universe.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 54. First Law of Thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics

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 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, 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 random, highly disorganized state as assumed by evolutionists and proponents of the big bang theory.b

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 55. Second Law of Thermodynamics

Third Law of Thermodynamics

The third law of thermodynamics is sometimes stated as follows, regarding the properties of systems in equilibrium at absolute zero temperature:

The entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero is exactly equal to zero.

At absolute zero (zero kelvin), the system must be in a state with the minimum possible energy, and the above statement of the third law holds true provided that the perfect crystal has only one minimum energy state. Entropy is related to the number of accessible microstates, and for a system consisting of many particles, quantum mechanics indicates that there is only one unique state (called the ground state) with minimum energy.[1] If the system does not have a well-defined order (if its order is glassy, for example), then in practice there will remain some finite entropy as the system is brought to very low temperatures as the system becomes locked into a configuration with non-minimal energy. The constant value is called the residual entropy of the system.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_law ... modynamics

Pahu;1493709 wrote: It is hard for me to believe you do not know the definition of nothing. Do you have access to a dictionary?
Well, yes, of course I have a dictionary. Why do you ask? We had a discussion some time ago, where I brought out my dictionary to find the definition of "Evolution", and you promptly rejected it. So, Obviously, you reject dictionary definitions when it suits you. Therefore, I wanted to hear your definition of "nothing".

Pahu;1493709 wrote: Since the universe had a beginning, and the definition of universe is everything that exists, then logically before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause, therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural proving the existence of God.


More Evidence free assertions from you.



Your argument, based on this lack of evidence, is supported by nothing. And yet, you cannot take the time to define this nothing on which you hang your entire philosophy.

So let me try this: You're saying that everything used to be nothing, and suddenly, miraculously, everything became something, which, somehow, proves there is a God.

Sounds pretty weak, to me.

LarsMac;1493711 wrote: Well, yes, of course I have a dictionary. Why do you ask? We had a discussion some time ago, where I brought out my dictionary to find the definition of "Evolution", and you promptly rejected it. So, Obviously, you reject dictionary definitions when it suits you. Therefore, I wanted to hear your definition of "nothing".



More Evidence free assertions from you.



Your argument, based on this lack of evidence, is supported by nothing. And yet, you cannot take the time to define this nothing on which you hang your entire philosophy.

So let me try this: You're saying that everything used to be nothing, and suddenly, miraculously, everything became something, which, somehow, proves there is a God.

Sounds pretty weak, to me.


Not at all. If the universe did not have a beginning, which you are implying, that means it has always existed. But that notion conflicts with the facts of science. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

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

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