Science Disproves Evolution

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu May 07, 2015 7:24 am

LarsMac;1478740 wrote: I asked this last time you posted that - What has planetary development got to do with evolution?

It has everything to do with the evolution of the universe. If the universe did not evolve it would not exist since it came from nothing, which it could not do by any natural cause. Therefor the cause was supernatural, which demands a Creator. If the universe did not come from nothing, it would not exist, nor would biological evolution. Since there is no evidence supporting biological evolution, it does not exist.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu May 07, 2015 7:28 am

LarsMac;1478765 wrote: So, let's go back to the basics, again.

Here are extractions from several dictionaries,of the word, 'evolution'

Please tell me which of these definitions 'science' disproves.

This one:

2. Biology

a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, often resulting in the development of new species. The mechanisms of evolution include natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, mutation, migration, and genetic drift.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu May 07, 2015 9:05 am

Pahu;1478781 wrote: It has everything to do with the evolution of the universe. If the universe did not evolve it would not exist since it came from nothing, which it could not do by any natural cause. Therefor the cause was supernatural, which demands a Creator. If the universe did not come from nothing, it would not exist, nor would biological evolution. Since there is no evidence supporting biological evolution, it does not exist.

Here you state that Planetary Evolution DOES exist, yet here, in one of YOUR pastings Dolt Brown says it DOESN'T.

Pahu;1470518 wrote: A simple fix for the IAU would have been to consider Pluto as both a trans-Neptunian objects and (for historical reasons) a planet. Also, an honest acknowledgement that all planets are unique would have clarified matters. Hundreds of planets discovered outside the solar system are completely different from those inside the solar system. Evolutionary processes do not explain them. [See “Have Planets Been Discovered Outside the Solar System? [/URL]

(Your Master's Voice)

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Fri May 08, 2015 11:21 am

I blindly believe everything I am taught in school and the mainstream, funded scientific community. I also rely heavily on the mainstream media to feed me nourishing bits of propaganda....regardless of source.

I believe, therefore I am blind to any other possibilities. And will fight to my last breath to disprove anything that contradicts my ideology and opinion. I long for my socialist utopia.

Where's my remote?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Fri May 08, 2015 11:51 am

halfway;1478871 wrote: I blindly believe everything I am taught in school and the mainstream, funded scientific community. I also rely heavily on the mainstream media to feed me nourishing bits of propaganda....regardless of source.

I believe, therefore I am blind to any other possibilities. And will fight to my last breath to disprove anything that contradicts my ideology and opinion. I long for my socialist utopia.

Where's my remote?

Blindly ? Please feel free, along side Pahu, to offer the evidence that we are unable to see. The only stipulation is that you use proper, peer reviewed science and not the invented stuff that seems to be common within the speculations offered by Mr Brown. And if you have been following this thread closely, quote those real scientists and experts in context so as not to confuse us and our sight impaired gullibility.

Thankfully, the remote is available to us all and not just the weak minded.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri May 08, 2015 12:01 pm

halfway;1478871 wrote: I blindly believe everything I am taught in school and the mainstream, funded scientific community. I also rely heavily on the mainstream media to feed me nourishing bits of propaganda....regardless of source.

I believe, therefore I am blind to any other possibilities. And will fight to my last breath to disprove anything that contradicts my ideology and opinion. I long for my socialist utopia.

Where's my remote?

What you meant to say:

I blindly believe everything I am taught in church and the mainstream funded religious community. I also rely heavily on the religious media to feed me nourishing bits of propaganda....regardless of source.

I believe, therefore I am blind to any other possibilities. And will fight to my last breath to disprove anything that contradicts my ideology and opinion. I long for my religious utopia.

Where's my remote?

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Fri May 08, 2015 12:59 pm

Originally Posted by Pahu:

It has everything to do with the evolution of the universe. If the universe did not evolve it would not exist since it came from nothing, which it could not do by any natural cause. Therefor the cause was supernatural, which demands a Creator. If the universe did not come from nothing, it would not exist, nor would biological evolution. Since there is no evidence supporting biological evolution, it does not exist.

FourPart;1478787 wrote: Here you state that Planetary Evolution DOES exist, yet here, in one of YOUR pastings Dolt Brown says it DOESN'T.

Okay, I am sure you understand what I meant even though I should have phrased it differently. Perhaps this will clarify: Since the universe did not evolve it would not exist since it came from nothing, which it could not do by any natural cause. Therefor the cause was supernatural, which demands a Creator. If the universe did not come from nothing, it would not exist, nor would biological evolution. Since there is no evidence supporting biological evolution, it does not exist.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri May 08, 2015 2:03 pm

Pahu;1478882 wrote: Originally Posted by Pahu:

It has everything to do with the evolution of the universe. If the universe did not evolve it would not exist since it came from nothing, which it could not do by any natural cause. Therefor the cause was supernatural, which demands a Creator. If the universe did not come from nothing, it would not exist, nor would biological evolution. Since there is no evidence supporting biological evolution, it does not exist.

Okay, I am sure you understand what I meant even though I should have phrased it differently. Perhaps this will clarify: Since the universe did not evolve it would not exist since it came from nothing, which it could not do by any natural cause. Therefor the cause was supernatural, which demands a Creator. If the universe did not come from nothing, it would not exist, nor would biological evolution. Since there is no evidence supporting biological evolution, it does not exist.

How do you figure that it came from nothing? There has never been a nothing, and never will be a nothing.

So to expect something to have come from nothing is illogical. Nobody claims the universe, or anything else came from nothing. Except for creationists.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri May 08, 2015 4:24 pm

Pahu;1478882 wrote: Since there is no evidence supporting biological evolution, it does not exist.
Since there is no evidence that even we exist & could simply be the figment of something's imagination, by your logic then it has to be assumed that we do not exist. Now, let's see Dolt Brown disprove that.

You constantly refer to the lack of evidence regarding evolution, when it is there in abundance, yet you blindly follow Brown's wild Hydroplate Theory, for which there is absolutely NO geological evidence, and has been debunked by all the world's leading scientists as utter nonsense. As there is no evidence to support it, it doesn't exist - you said so yourself.

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Fri May 08, 2015 5:36 pm

Amazing that people go out of their way to hate others and their beliefs.

Amazing.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri May 08, 2015 6:58 pm

halfway;1478901 wrote: Amazing that people go out of their way to hate others and their beliefs.

Amazing.

I don't see any hate, here. We are arguing from different points of view.

What would be the point of being here if we all agree on everything?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sat May 09, 2015 2:00 am

halfway;1478901 wrote: Amazing that people go out of their way to hate others and their beliefs.

Amazing.

There's been no hate here whatsoever. This is a discussion forum after all, so why would we not discuss the subjects offered up, including this one.

The whole debate about Creationism and Evolution has been handled here, firmly but reasonably respectful. At no time has it got out of hand. The hate you perceive just simply isn't here. It's just two opposing standpoints

If you feel strongly about this where's your input ? Prove to us that you are right and we are wrong....without relying on Brown, hopefully

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat May 09, 2015 2:39 am

Religion is founded on hatred. It can't survive without it. That's why they see it everywhere, even when it doesn't exist & feel compelled to force their hateful views upon everyone else.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat May 09, 2015 6:45 am

FourPart;1478911 wrote: Religion is founded on hatred. It can't survive without it. That's why they see it everywhere, even when it doesn't exist & feel compelled to force their hateful views upon everyone else.

Sorry, but I got to call you on that. religion is not really the problem that you make it. The hate comes from the human side. We find ways to hate, even without religion.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat May 09, 2015 7:22 am

LarsMac;1478921 wrote: The hate comes from the human side. We find ways to hate, even without religion.
Of course it does. It was humans that made Religion.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Sat May 09, 2015 11:37 am

LarsMac;1478884 wrote: How do you figure that it came from nothing? There has never been a nothing, and never will be a nothing.

So to expect something to have come from nothing is illogical. Nobody claims the universe, or anything else came from nothing. Except for creationists.

Since the universe had a beginning, there was a time before that beginning. The definition of "universe" is everything that exists. So there was a time before everything existed. There was nothing. From nothing the universe appeared, which is not possible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe must have been supernatural.

Do you have a natural explanation for the universe coming from nothing?

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Sat May 09, 2015 12:04 pm

FourPart;1478890 wrote: Since there is no evidence that even we exist & could simply be the figment of something's imagination, by your logic then it has to be assumed that we do not exist.

But there is evidence we exist. We think, therefor we are! Most famously, this is known as cogito ergo sum (English: "I think, therefore I am"). Therefore, Descartes concluded, if he doubted, then something or someone must be doing the doubting, therefore the very fact that he doubted proved his existence.

You constantly refer to the lack of evidence regarding evolution, when it is there in abundance...

Where is that abundant evidence? Let me define science:

science: A field of study seeking to better understand natural phenomena through the use of observations and experiments.

Broad, but increasingly precise and concise, relationships are sought between causes and effects. These relationships, called scientific laws, help predict future phenomena and explain past events.

Notice, this does not mean that the first cause must be naturalistic. It is poor logic to say that because science deals with natural, cause-and-effect relationships, the first cause must be a natural event. Furthermore, if the first cause were a natural consequence of something else, it would not be the first cause. Scientific laws can give great insight on ultimate origins even though the first cause cannot, by definition, be duplicated. Yes, there was a beginning.

Scientific conclusions, while never final, must be based on evidence, which is something that has been measured with instruments or detected with our senses, is verifiable, and helps support or refute possible physical explanations.

All scientific evidence is based on observable, natural phenomena that others can check. To most people, this evidence implies a creation and a global flood. This does not mean that the Creator (The First Cause) can be studied scientifically or that the Bible should be read in public-school science classes. Those who want evolution taught without the clear evidence opposing it, in effect, wish to censor a large body of scientific evidence from schools. That is wrong. Also, the consequences of a global flood have been misinterpreted as evidence for evolution, not as evidence for a flood. That misinterpretation, unfortunately, is taught as science.

Evolutionists raise several objections. Some say, “Even though evidence may imply a sudden beginning, creation is supernatural (not natural) and cannot be entertained as a scientific explanation. Of course, no one understands scientifically how the universe came into existence—how space, time, matter, and the laws of physics began. Others, not disputing that the flood best explains many features on earth, object to a global flood, because the Bible—a document they wish to discredit—speaks of such a flood. Still others object to the starting point for the flood, but in science, all starting points are possibilities. The key question must always be, “What best explains all the evidence?

Again, what is important is not the source of an idea, but whether all evidence supports it better than any other explanation. Science, after all, is a search for truth about how the physical universe behaves. Therefore, let’s teach all the science.

For more information on this subject, go here:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...html#wp2727001

...yet you blindly follow Brown's wild Hydroplate Theory, for which there is absolutely NO geological evidence, and has been debunked by all the world's leading scientists as utter nonsense. As there is no evidence to support it, it doesn't exist - you said so yourself.

There is plenty of evidence supporting the Hydroplate Theory. See for yourself here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview

Scientists are human and are subject to believing what they want to believe despite the evidence. Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

Predictions of the hydroplate theory are summarized below. Confirmed predictions are in bold, and a partially missed prediction is in italics. Page numbers, where more information can be found, are in parentheses.

1. pooled water under mountains (131)

2. salty water in very deep granite cracks (131)

3. many fossilized whales at the base of Andes (135)

4. deep channels under Bosporus and Gibraltar (133)

5. fracture zones mark high magnetic intensity (144)

6. magnetic strength grows at hydrothermal vents (144)

7. Earth is shrinking (163)

8. earthquakes will be predicted (161)

9. granite layer deep under Pacific floor (169)

10. shallow-water fossils in and near trenches (170)

11. inner core’s spin is decelerating (181)

12. age sequences wrong for Hawaiian islands (185)

13. thin, parallel, extensive varves not under lakes (197)

14. sand dunes from Canyon (220)

15. unique chemistry of Grand and Hopi Basins (222)

16. slot canyons have cracks that are miles deep (224)

17. Grand Canyon’s inner gorge is a tension crack (225)

18. fault under East Kaibab monocline (237)

19. loess at bottom of ice cores (269)

20. muck on Siberian plateaus (270)

21. rock ice is salty (270)

22. carbon dioxide bubbles in rock ice (270)

23. muck particles in rock ice (270)

24. no fossils below mammoths (271)

25. radiocarbon dating mammoths (272)

26. ice age can be demonstrated (285)

27. salt on Mars (302)

28. moons around some comets (303)

29. mass of solar system heavier than expected (304)

30. a few comets reappear unexpectedly (304)

31. excess heavy hydrogen in 5+-mile-deep water (306)

32. salt and bacteria in comets (306)

33. Oort cloud does not exist (315)

34. no incoming hyperbolic comets (315)

35. argon only in comet crust (316)

36. asteroids are flying rock piles (326)

37. rocks on asteroids and comets are rounded (326)

38. rapidly spinning asteroids are well-rounded (328)

39. asteroid rocks are magnetized (332)

40. deuterium on Themis (334)

41. water is inside large asteroids (334)

42. mining asteroids too costly (334)

43. Deimos has a very low density (336)

44. Mars’ sediments deposited through air (342)

45. heavy hydrogen in space ice (342)

46. comets are rich in oxygen-18 (392)

47. lineaments correlate with earthquakes (393)

48. little radioactivity on Moon, Mars (395)

49. new telescopes will not find reionization of IGM (421)

50. carbon-14 in “old bones (483)

51. bacteria on Mars (509)

52. some hydrogen is missing from polonium halos (578)

53. spin rate and direction of Ceres (352)

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - What Are the Predictions of the Hydroplate Theory?

Scientists should want their conclusions critiqued, or refereed, by their peers (peer review). Researchers who believe their work is important should try to publish that work. However, leading science journals will not accept papers published elsewhere. (That stipulation alone eliminates any portion of this book from consideration.) Seldom would a science journal publish a paper more than 6 pages in length. (That also prevents the hydroplate theory, pages 111–411, from being published in a journal.)

I certainly want my ideas tested and have frequently initiated and appreciated cordial, factual exchanges with scientists who are not creationists. But in a journal, who does the evaluation, and is there an unbiased process in which a writer who advances creation or the flood can challenge an evolutionist reviewer’s disagreement? Leading science journals have a solid history of hostility toward creationists, so evolutionists are both judge and jury. Who would want to make his case in a court run by an opponent?

Why would that opponent publish your case?

To level the playing field, I have had on the table, since 1980, a written-debate offer for any qualified evolutionist or team of evolutionists who disagree with what I have written. A neutral editor, acting as judge, would ensure the debate rules were followed; the jury would be all readers. Both sides would have the right to publish the complete debate if a large publisher chose not to.

Evolutionists have known of this offer for many years. It was published in the anticreation journal, Creation/Evolution , in 1990. The offer was even placed on the worldwide web in 1995. So far, no evolutionist has accepted. A few initially agreed but soon dropped out, because they were unwilling to limit the exchange to science; they wanted to include (and probably ridicule) religious views. Another debate offer that, if accepted, could be heard (or read from a transcript) by the public over the Internet; it is explained on page 551. Can you find a taker for either debate? Until someone accepts the written debate and as long as my good health continues, both offers will remain.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Why Don’t Creationists Publish in Leading Science Journals?

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Sat May 09, 2015 12:09 pm

FourPart;1478911 wrote: Religion is founded on hatred. It can't survive without it. That's why they see it everywhere, even when it doesn't exist & feel compelled to force their hateful views upon everyone else.

This is true of some false religions like Islam. Christianity has survived quite well for about 2000 years without hate.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sat May 09, 2015 12:29 pm

If, according to Brown, comets and meteorites originated from Earth, why then are there more craters on the far side of the moon. You would assume the far side would be devoid, pretty much, of impacts, since they were "going the other way"

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat May 09, 2015 12:43 pm

Pahu;1478938 wrote:

Do you have a natural explanation for the universe coming from nothing?

Forget about all your "Supernatural" codswallop - as previously stated, "Supernatural", as far as you are concerned is defined as something you either do not understand or, more to the point, refuse to accept. Certainly there are things that we don't understand - far more than those we do, but that doesn't make them "Supernatural". It just means we don't understand.

As far as the Universe having come from nothing - I just quoted you. You just said that it did. Your very words (or more to the point, Dolt Brown's, seeing as you don't have any words of your own).

Another part of your argument is ignoring the factor of Time. I know it is difficult to comprehend, but Time, itself, is a variable in Physics. It is not necessarily, as you might imagine, a linear factor either, but it is generally believed to have begun at the moment of the Big Bang, which was not only the beginning of the Universe, but of Time itself.

As for an explanation of the begining of the Universe - I presume Stephen Hawking is a sufficiently recognised authority on things (despite how Brown likes to quote him out of context). These are his words on the matter, in their entirety (not once does he use the word "Supernatural")...

The Origin of the Universe - Stephen Hawking

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Sat May 09, 2015 1:48 pm

Snowfire;1478947 wrote: If, according to Brown, comets and meteorites originated from Earth, why then are there more craters on the far side of the moon. You would assume the far side would be devoid, pretty much, of impacts, since they were "going the other way"

As I understand it, the far side was peppered with returning material, which was traveling slower than when it left earth. The near side was hit harder, which caused volcanic activity, which covered up much of the evidence. Here is Brown's explanation:

Almost all deep moonquakes are on the near side. The surface of the far side is rougher, while the near side has most of the Moon’s volcanic features, lava flows, dome complexes, and giant, multiringed basins. Lava flows (darker regions) have smoothed over many craters on the near side.

Some have proposed that the Moon’s crust must be thinner on the near side, so lava can squirt out more easily on the near side than the far side. However, gravity, seismic, and heat flow measurements kill that hypothesis. The Moon’s density throughout is almost as uniform as that of a billiard ball. Not only did large impacts form the giant basins, but their impact energy melted rock below, generated lava flows, and expanded the Moon! The cracks that brought the lava to the surface have been detected. These impacts appear to have happened rapidly and recently.

Large impacts would also shift rock within the moon and produce deep frictional melting. Magma produced below the Moon’s crossover depth would sink to the moon’s center and form the Moon’s small liquid core that was discovered in 2011. That core has not had time to cool and solidify.

Contemporaries of Galileo misnamed these dark lava flows “maria (MAHR-ee-uh), Latin for “seas, because they filled low-lying regions and looked smooth. These maria give the Moon its “man-in-the-moon appearance. Of the Moon’s 31 giant basins, only 11 are on the far side.63 (See if you can flip 31 coins and get 11 or fewer tails. Not too likely. It happens only about 7% of the time.) Why should the near side have so many more giant impact features, almost all the maria, and almost all deep moonquakes? Opposite sides of Mars and Mercury are also different.

If the impacts that produced these volcanic features occurred slowly from any or all directions, all sides would be equally hit. Only if the impacts occurred rapidly from a specific direction would large impact features be concentrated on one side of the Moon. Of course, large impacts would kick up millions of smaller rocks that would themselves create impacts or go into orbit around the Moon and create other, but smaller, impacts—even on Earth. Today, both sides of the Moon are saturated with smaller craters. Were the large lunar impactors launched from Earth?

The Moon as a whole has relatively few volatile elements, such as nitrogen, hydrogen, chlorine, sulphur, and the noble gases. Surprisingly, lunar soil contains these elements—and water. The isotope ratios of these elements in lunar soils correspond not to the solar wind but to what is found on Earth—suggesting that they came from Earth. Also, the rocks astronauts brought back from the Moon have identical oxygen and titanium isotopic ratios as those on earth. If large impactors came from Earth recently, most moonquakes should be on the near side, and they should still be occurring. They are.57

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Comets

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Sat May 09, 2015 2:08 pm

FourPart;1478948 wrote: Forget about all your "Supernatural" codswallop - as previously stated, "Supernatural", as far as you are concerned is defined as something you either do not understand or, more to the point, refuse to accept.

I accept the existence of the supernatural because there is no other way the universe could have appeared from nothing. Do you accept the existence of the supernatural?

Certainly there are things that we don't understand - far more than those we do, but that doesn't make them "Supernatural". It just means we don't understand.

With the exception of the appearance of the universe from nothing. I believe we can agree the universe didn't create itself from nothing, can't we?

Another part of your argument is ignoring the factor of Time. I know it is difficult to comprehend, but Time, itself, is a variable in Physics. It is not necessarily, as you might imagine, a linear factor either, but it is generally believed to have begun at the moment of the Big Bang, which was not only the beginning of the Universe, but of Time itself.

But the Big Bang story says all the material in the universe was compressed into a tiny object about the size of a bb. So that could not have been the beginning of the universe, it just rearranges the existing matter. There had to have been a time when all that matter did not exist and there was nothing. Time began with the creation of the universe. Time is not an entity. It is merely our measurement of change.

As for an explanation of the begining of the Universe - I presume Stephen Hawking is a sufficiently recognised authority on things (despite how Brown likes to quote him out of context). These are his words on the matter, in their entirety (not once does he use the word "Supernatural")...

The Origin of the Universe - Stephen Hawking

You have a good imagination. Hawking also has a good imagination, but his opinions are evidence free.

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Sat May 09, 2015 4:59 pm

Thank you Pahu.

Very informative. And I agree....I see no examples or direction of hate in the Bible.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun May 10, 2015 3:59 am

Pahu;1478955 wrote:

Almost all deep moonquakes are on the near side. The surface of the far side is rougher, while the near side has most of the Moon’s volcanic features, lava flows, dome complexes, and giant, multiringed basins. Lava flows (darker regions) have smoothed over many craters on the near side.

There is absolutely no evidence for seismic activity existing either now or ever before on the moon. As usual, his claims are purely imaginary.

Some have proposed that the Moon’s crust must be thinner on the near side, so lava can squirt out more easily on the near side than the far side. However, gravity, seismic, and heat flow measurements kill that hypothesis. The Moon’s density throughout is almost as uniform as that of a billiard ball. Not only did large impacts form the giant basins, but their impact energy melted rock below, generated lava flows, and expanded the Moon! The cracks that brought the lava to the surface have been detected. These impacts appear to have happened rapidly and recently.

Some have also proposed that the moon is made of cheese. Does this mean that the lava flows are really melted cheese?

Large impacts would also shift rock within the moon and produce deep frictional melting. Magma produced below the Moon’s crossover depth would sink to the moon’s center and form the Moon’s small liquid core that was discovered in 2011. That core has not had time to cool and solidify.

Not if, as commonly believed, the moon was originally part of the earth, broken away from the impact of an asteroid / comet.

Contemporaries of Galileo misnamed these dark lava flows “maria (MAHR-ee-uh), Latin for “seas, because they filled low-lying regions and looked smooth. These maria give the Moon its “man-in-the-moon appearance. Of the Moon’s 31 giant basins, only 11 are on the far side.63 (See if you can flip 31 coins and get 11 or fewer tails. Not too likely. It happens only about 7% of the time.) Why should the near side have so many more giant impact features, almost all the maria, and almost all deep moonquakes? Opposite sides of Mars and Mercury are also different.
Theologists have also claimed that the rings of Saturn are really the forskin of Christ (The Holy Prepuce - The rings of Saturn are the Holy Foreskin of...).

Once again, Brown is basing his imaginary notions as 'fact' on the false premise of the moon being seismically active. His arguments are also based on the premise of the earth being the centre of the Universe. Craters on planets (and moons) are like one big 3D pool table. The black is half hidden behind the red, but it is still possible to hit it at an angle. The number of hits, though, are bound to be far more frequent from the open side which doesn't have the protection of the balls on the other side.

If the impacts that produced these volcanic features occurred slowly from any or all directions, all sides would be equally hit. Only if the impacts occurred rapidly from a specific direction would large impact features be concentrated on one side of the Moon. Of course, large impacts would kick up millions of smaller rocks that would themselves create impacts or go into orbit around the Moon and create other, but smaller, impacts—even on Earth. Today, both sides of the Moon are saturated with smaller craters. Were the large lunar impactors launched from Earth?

More presumptions of lunar seismic activity as thet only basis for his failed argument.

The Moon as a whole has relatively few volatile elements, such as nitrogen, hydrogen, chlorine, sulphur, and the noble gases. Surprisingly, lunar soil contains these elements—and water. The isotope ratios of these elements in lunar soils correspond not to the solar wind but to what is found on Earth—suggesting that they came from Earth. Also, the rocks astronauts brought back from the Moon have identical oxygen and titanium isotopic ratios as those on earth. If large impactors came from Earth recently, most moonquakes should be on the near side, and they should still be occurring. They are.57

Not surprising at all. If the moon is, as generally believed, of earth origin, then it's hardly surprising that its compound elements would be the same. As to why there is little trace of water, that, too, is not surprising. When you get submarine volcanic eruptions & rocks are blasted out of the sea into the air, do those rocks remain wet for long?

Every bit of what Brown has stated there is based on the foundless claim that the moon is seismically active, which is known NOT to be the case.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun May 10, 2015 4:19 am

Pahu;1478957 wrote: I accept the existence of the supernatural because there is no other way the universe could have appeared from nothing. Do you accept the existence of the supernatural?

You accept the existence of anything said by Brown because you want it to be so, despite the fact that there is less than no evidence to back it up. Moreover, what evidence there is disproves his notions.

With the exception of the appearance of the universe from nothing. I believe we can agree the universe didn't create itself from nothing, can't we?
No.

But the Big Bang story says all the material in the universe was compressed into a tiny object about the size of a bb. So that could not have been the beginning of the universe, it just rearranges the existing matter. There had to have been a time when all that matter did not exist and there was nothing. Time began with the creation of the universe. Time is not an entity. It is merely our measurement of change.

Wrong. You are failing to conceive the fact that the Universe is expanding, and has done so from the moment of the Big Bang, when that something, a trillionth, trillionth the size of an atom WAS the Universe. When whatever happened happened it exploded & the Universe began expanding.

Furthermore, time is not a constant, it is a variable which changes according to the speed of light & gravity. This much has been proven. It has been predicted with mathematics, put to the test & proven. When other variables change, then so does Time. Therefore, when the variables are right, Time itself can have a zero value. The way we measure what we regard as being 'Time' is like the difference between Mass & Weight.

You have a good imagination. Hawking also has a good imagination, but his opinions are evidence free.

That has to be the best one yet. Pahu ousts Stephen Hawking, who is generally accepted as being the greatest genius, mathematician & physicist of all time, as having nothing to base his groundbreaking discoveries on, and despite the masses of evidence to support his theories, because they don't fit in with Dolt Brown's crazy notions, then all the evidence to support Hawking's theses has to be ignored & declared as non-existent & written of as imagination. Of course, Pahu is far more of an authority on Quantum Physics than Professor Stephen Hawking (who came up with the idea of Quantum Physics in the first place).

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Sun May 10, 2015 6:14 am

I think you are living rent-free in their heads Pahu.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun May 10, 2015 6:35 am

halfway;1479006 wrote: I think you are living rent-free in their heads Pahu.

Wow ! Great input. Thanks for bringing that to the table

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun May 10, 2015 12:22 pm

Yeah - he's a figment of our imaginations.

To be honest, I'm not even sure if halfway is being ridiculously sincere or simply deadpan sarcastic.

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Sun May 10, 2015 2:04 pm

Snowfire;1479008 wrote: Wow ! Great input. Thanks for bringing that to the table

You are very welcome.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon May 11, 2015 7:46 am

FourPart;1478999 wrote:

Every bit of what Brown has stated there is based on the foundless claim that the moon is seismically active, which is known NOT to be the case.

Do you have evidence to support that assertion?

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon May 11, 2015 8:20 am

FourPart;1479000 wrote: You accept the existence of anything said by Brown because you want it to be so, despite the fact that there is less than no evidence to back it up. Moreover, what evidence there is disproves his notions.

What evidence is that?

With the exception of the appearance of the universe from nothing. I believe we can agree the universe didn't create itself from nothing, can't we?

No.

Then you believe the universe did create itself from nothing? How did it do that?

The Big Bang story says all the material in the universe was compressed into a tiny object about the size of a bb. So that could not have been the beginning of the universe, it just rearranges the existing matter. There had to have been a time when all that matter did not exist and there was nothing.

Wrong.

Are you saying there was nothing before the Big Bang, that all that matter has always existed? Wouldn't that conflict with that laws of physics? 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.

You are failing to conceive the fact that the Universe is expanding, and has done so from the moment of the Big Bang, when that something, a trillionth, trillionth the size of an atom WAS the Universe. When whatever happened happened it exploded & the Universe began expanding.

I am aware the the universe is expanding, but how does that prove a Big Bang? That's a nice story but it needs to start with; Once upon a time. All the matter in the universe was a trillionth, trillionth the size of an atom? You've got to be kidding! Show us the evidence for that assertion. It is not based on evidence, but faith!

Furthermore, time is not a constant, it is a variable which changes according to the speed of light & gravity. This much has been proven. It has been predicted with mathematics, put to the test & proven. When other variables change, then so does Time. Therefore, when the variables are right, Time itself can have a zero value. The way we measure what we regard as being 'Time' is like the difference between Mass & Weight.

Time is nothing more than our measurement of change.

You have a good imagination. Hawking also has a good imagination, but his opinions are evidence free.

That has to be the best one yet. Pahu ousts Stephen Hawking, who is generally accepted as being the greatest genius, mathematician & physicist of all time, as having nothing to base his groundbreaking discoveries on, and despite the masses of evidence to support his theories, because they don't fit in with Dolt Brown's crazy notions, then all the evidence to support Hawking's theses has to be ignored & declared as non-existent & written of as imagination. Of course, Pahu is far more of an authority on Quantum Physics than Professor Stephen Hawking (who came up with the idea of Quantum Physics in the first place).

Notice I said his opinions, not his science. Also remember, He confirmed what Brown said. When Brown said: "A beginning suggests a Creator," Hawking agreed with him when he stated: “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.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Mon May 11, 2015 10:51 am

Pahu;1479076 wrote:

Notice I said his opinions, not his science. Also remember, He confirmed what Brown said. When Brown said: "A beginning suggests a Creator," Hawking agreed with him when he stated: “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.

See, there you go YET again. What is it you don't understand about the word "context" ?

Are you so wrapped up in mythology and pseudo science, you have forgotten about the real world ? It's just appalling that you repeatedly need reminding about the meaning of simple English words.

It's obviously deliberate. "Context" completely blows Browns theories out of the water doesn't it ?

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon May 11, 2015 11:55 am

Originally Posted by Pahu:

Notice I said his opinions, not his science. Also remember, He confirmed what Brown said. When Brown said: "A beginning suggests a Creator," Hawking agreed with him when he stated: “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.

Snowfire;1479095 wrote: See, there you go YET again. What is it you don't understand about the word "context" ?

Are you so wrapped up in mythology and pseudo science, you have forgotten about the real world ? It's just appalling that you repeatedly need reminding about the meaning of simple English words.

It's obviously deliberate. "Context" completely blows Browns theories out of the water doesn't it ?

The confirmation of Brown's conclusion by Hawking is valid. He is repeating nearly word-for-word what Brown said. Brown never quotes anyone out of context in order to change the meaning of the quote.

What mythology are you referring to? The only pseudo science I am aware of is evolution. In the real world the evidence supports creation.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Mon May 11, 2015 12:05 pm

Pahu;1479101 wrote: Originally Posted by Pahu:

Notice I said his opinions, not his science. Also remember, He confirmed what Brown said. When Brown said: "A beginning suggests a Creator," Hawking agreed with him when he stated: “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.

The confirmation of Brown's conclusion by Hawking is valid. He is repeating nearly word-for-word what Brown said. Brown never quotes anyone out of context in order to change the meaning of the quote.

What mythology are you referring to? The only pseudo science I am aware of is evolution. In the real world the evidence supports creation.

By missing the previous and subsequent sentences to the part used by Brown, the meaning is of course changed. You cannot use a single sentence in isolation. This has been more than adequately explained. My grand children understand the concept of context, why can't you ? You are a grown man with, I assume, a modicum of education but you persist with this travesty of misusing the English language simply to reinforce a falsehood.

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Mon May 11, 2015 3:07 pm

So much time and energy in bashing someone's beliefs.

Some will never believe what they do not understand.

Sounds like liberals in America....rigid, inflexible, hateful, and very discriminating of anything outside their ideology and party line.

Shame. Someday the truth will hit like a ton of bricks.....sleep well.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon May 11, 2015 3:44 pm

halfway;1479125 wrote: So much time and energy in bashing someone's beliefs.

Some will never believe what they do not understand.

Sounds like liberals in America....rigid, inflexible, hateful, and very discriminating of anything outside their ideology and party line.

Shame. Someday the truth will hit like a ton of bricks.....sleep well.

That describes Pahu to a 'T'.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon May 11, 2015 3:56 pm

Isn't it ironic that when Hawking to scientifically based evidence to support the beginning of the Universe & the finite existence of Time, that is where everything he says is imagination, yet when he is quoted, albeit blatantly out of context, supposedly in support of Brown, he is a genius who knows what he's talking about. More Cherry Picking.

It doesn't matter how many times you paste the same selective quote, it doesn't make it any less out of context. A quote, when taken out of CONTEXT is meaningless. In fact, it even describes its own method - CON-TEXT. As with everything else Brown says, it is a lie.

As for Lunar Seismic Activity, while it is true that Moonquakes have been recorded, these are nothing to do with tectonics or geological activity, but believed to be a result of gravitational & tidal fields between the opposing pulls of the earth & the moon - or do you believe there are Hydroplates on the moon as well?

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon May 11, 2015 5:38 pm

halfway;1479125 wrote: So much time and energy in bashing someone's beliefs.

Some will never believe what they do not understand.

Sounds like liberals in America....rigid, inflexible, hateful, and very discriminating of anything outside their ideology and party line.

Shame. Someday the truth will hit like a ton of bricks.....sleep well.

Since the title of the thread uses the word "science", one might actually expect to have a science-related discussion.

Belief is not science.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue May 12, 2015 12:30 am

LarsMac;1479140 wrote: Since the title of the thread uses the word "science", one might actually expect to have a science-related discussion.

Belief is not science.
Pahu believes it is.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue May 12, 2015 11:22 am

Snowfire;1479103 wrote: By missing the previous and subsequent sentences to the part used by Brown, the meaning is of course changed. You cannot use a single sentence in isolation. This has been more than adequately explained. My grand children understand the concept of context, why can't you ? You are a grown man with, I assume, a modicum of education but you persist with this travesty of misusing the English language simply to reinforce a falsehood.

But isn't His statement accurate?

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue May 12, 2015 11:39 am

FourPart;1479130 wrote: Isn't it ironic that when Hawking to scientifically based evidence to support the beginning of the Universe & the finite existence of Time, that is where everything he says is imagination, yet when he is quoted, albeit blatantly out of context, supposedly in support of Brown, he is a genius who knows what he's talking about. More Cherry Picking.

It doesn't matter how many times you paste the same selective quote, it doesn't make it any less out of context. A quote, when taken out of CONTEXT is meaningless. In fact, it even describes its own method - CON-TEXT. As with everything else Brown says, it is a lie.

Regardless of what else Hawking said, isn't the statement true that: “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator?

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue May 12, 2015 11:40 am

LarsMac;1479140 wrote: Since the title of the thread uses the word "science", one might actually expect to have a science-related discussion.

Belief is not science.

That's why evolution is not science.

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Tue May 12, 2015 12:03 pm

Pahu;1479179 wrote: That's why evolution is not science.

All (evolution theory) based on is flawed premises.

And....Antarctica sea ice is growing and has been growing steadily.

False premise creates false premise........and gives power to those employing the lies.

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue May 12, 2015 12:13 pm

Pahu;1479179 wrote: That's why evolution is not science.

Nope. As stated before, evolution is an observable phenomenon.

The science is in the observation, and analysis.

What Mr Brown publishes is speculation, based upon personal interpretation of fabricated evidence and mythology.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue May 12, 2015 12:24 pm

Pahu;1479177 wrote: But isn't His statement accurate?
You are using his words out of context meaning that the question itself is bogus. It's like my asking you if you're still beating your wife. Well - Are you?

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue May 12, 2015 12:47 pm

LarsMac;1479181 wrote: Nope. As stated before, evolution is an observable phenomenon.

The science is in the observation, and analysis.

Stated but evidence free. Where is that observation, and analysis supporting evolution?

What Mr Brown publishes is speculation, based upon personal interpretation of fabricated evidence and mythology.

For example?

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue May 12, 2015 12:49 pm

Pahu;1479178 wrote: Regardless of what else Hawking said, isn't the statement true that: “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator?

There is some logic to that statement.

"So long as..." is logically the same as "If..."

Then the definition of "suppose" is to "assume that something is the case on the basis of evidence or probability but without proof or certain knowledge."

There is your "evidence-free speculation", again.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue May 12, 2015 12:49 pm

FourPart;1479182 wrote: You are using his words out of context meaning that the question itself is bogus. It's like my asking you if you're still beating your wife. Well - Are you?

Where is the comparison? The fact remains that Hawking said: “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. Isn't that statement true?

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue May 12, 2015 2:42 pm

Pahu;1479188 wrote: Where is the comparison? The fact remains that Hawking said: “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. Isn't that statement true?

As a speculative statement, yes. But it is completely evidence-free.

No evidence, no science.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue May 12, 2015 2:59 pm

Science forms theories based on observation. It then sets to make projections, based on those observations. It then does experiments to prove the validity of the theory. If it doesn't, then the theory is revised. All science can do is prove things to be true.

Observation, projection & experimentation are continually reinforcing the case for evolution. There is absolutely no evidence for a creator, short of imagination. There have never been any projections made or experiments made to validate it.

Science only proves things to be true. If it doesn't it remains unproven & therefore subject to doubt. On this simple premise, even the title of this entire thread is utterly false.

Science doesn't use "Part Quotes" taken out of context to prove anything. Selective science is no science at all & belongs in the realm of Creationists, who choose to see what they want to see & deny the existence of what they don't want to see.