Unbiased? Non-religiously connected? I presume you mean this Dr. Stuart Patterson?
Dr. Patterson was a member of Second Presbyterian Church in Greenville where he served as Deacon and Ruling Elder and was a member of the Frank Outlaw Sunday School Class. He was also a Board Member with the Creation Study Group and on the Board of the Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.
(Source: Dr. Charles Stuart Patterson, 84 - Greenville)
Point made - still no unbiased sources provided. Try again.
Once again in you claim that science has proved the existence of God. It has NOT - only in your tiny mind. All you have come up with is superstitious nonsense. The argument of cause & effect is a valid one, I grant you ( unless you go into the realms of theoretical quantum & temporal physic, where effect can pre-empt cause, but that's a different matter & only proven as a mathematical possibility a=b, therefore b=a). You state that nothing can come of nothing, which as far as KNOWN science is true (science does not discount the possibilities of unknown factors). However, when that same argument is used against you you simply make up 'facts' to work around your notions & initiate the "anything that's not natural has to be supernatural" answer, which has already been dismissed as a non-answer. If something is not known, it is unknown. It's as simple as that. If we don't know the cause, as of yet, we don't know the cause. We don't make something up, which still goes against the initial argument, just because it doesn't fit. You claim that God has always been, but you can't accept that the Universe has always been.
Your argument against matter not creating matter is partially correct inasmuch as matter & energy are interchangeable. Energy can come from matter & matter can come from energy. Energy has always been. You could even say that your God, in the spiritual form is actually Energy. Now that would start to make sense. Replace the word "God" with "Energy" & things start to fall into place. "Energy created the heavens & the earth". If you do that, then your ideas begin to have some level of credibility, but it is still a perfectly natural thing & nothing 'supernatural' about it.
Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1477504 wrote: Unbiased? Non-religiously connected? I presume you mean this Dr. Stuart Patterson?
(Source: Dr. Charles Stuart Patterson, 84 - Greenville)
Point made - still no unbiased sources provided. Try again.
What does Patterson have to do with anything?
Once again in you claim that science has proved the existence of God. It has NOT - only in your tiny mind. All you have come up with is superstitious nonsense. The argument of cause & effect is a valid one, I grant you ( unless you go into the realms of theoretical quantum & temporal physic, where effect can pre-empt cause, but that's a different matter & only proven as a mathematical possibility a=b, therefore b=a). You state that nothing can come of nothing, which as far as KNOWN science is true (science does not discount the possibilities of unknown factors). However, when that same argument is used against you you simply make up 'facts' to work around your notions & initiate the "anything that's not natural has to be supernatural" answer, which has already been dismissed as a non-answer. If something is not known, it is unknown. It's as simple as that. If we don't know the cause, as of yet, we don't know the cause. We don't make something up, which still goes against the initial argument, just because it doesn't fit.
Your argument is based on the fact that you dismiss the possibility of the existence of God. The fact remains that before the universe existed there was nothing. From nothing the universe appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural.
You claim that God has always been, but you can't accept that the Universe has always been.
That is because the universe is physical. God is spiritual and has revealed in His Bible that He has always existed.
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.
Your argument against matter not creating matter is partially correct inasmuch as matter & energy are interchangeable. Energy can come from matter & matter can come from energy. Energy has always been. You could even say that your God, in the spiritual form is actually Energy. Now that would start to make sense. Replace the word "God" with "Energy" & things start to fall into place. "Energy created the heavens & the earth". If you do that, then your ideas begin to have some level of credibility, but it is still a perfectly natural thing & nothing 'supernatural' about it.
Before the universe existed nothing existed including matter and energy. If God were just a form of energy, where would the intelligence be? It is obvious that everything is intelligently designed. Your evidence free faith in science is interesting. Thinking science will some day answer all the questions that remain unanswered takes a lot of faith.
(Source: Dr. Charles Stuart Patterson, 84 - Greenville)
Point made - still no unbiased sources provided. Try again.
What does Patterson have to do with anything?
Once again in you claim that science has proved the existence of God. It has NOT - only in your tiny mind. All you have come up with is superstitious nonsense. The argument of cause & effect is a valid one, I grant you ( unless you go into the realms of theoretical quantum & temporal physic, where effect can pre-empt cause, but that's a different matter & only proven as a mathematical possibility a=b, therefore b=a). You state that nothing can come of nothing, which as far as KNOWN science is true (science does not discount the possibilities of unknown factors). However, when that same argument is used against you you simply make up 'facts' to work around your notions & initiate the "anything that's not natural has to be supernatural" answer, which has already been dismissed as a non-answer. If something is not known, it is unknown. It's as simple as that. If we don't know the cause, as of yet, we don't know the cause. We don't make something up, which still goes against the initial argument, just because it doesn't fit.
Your argument is based on the fact that you dismiss the possibility of the existence of God. The fact remains that before the universe existed there was nothing. From nothing the universe appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural.
You claim that God has always been, but you can't accept that the Universe has always been.
That is because the universe is physical. God is spiritual and has revealed in His Bible that He has always existed.
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.
Your argument against matter not creating matter is partially correct inasmuch as matter & energy are interchangeable. Energy can come from matter & matter can come from energy. Energy has always been. You could even say that your God, in the spiritual form is actually Energy. Now that would start to make sense. Replace the word "God" with "Energy" & things start to fall into place. "Energy created the heavens & the earth". If you do that, then your ideas begin to have some level of credibility, but it is still a perfectly natural thing & nothing 'supernatural' about it.
Before the universe existed nothing existed including matter and energy. If God were just a form of energy, where would the intelligence be? It is obvious that everything is intelligently designed. Your evidence free faith in science is interesting. Thinking science will some day answer all the questions that remain unanswered takes a lot of faith.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
This isn't really about the existence of God. Whether there is, or isn't, a God, this is about how Evolution.
We start with completely dissimilar definitions of Evolution, and apparently completely dissimilar definitions of Science.
Your whole thought process seems to be in trying to prove that the "Young Earth" concept of creation trumps all evidence that science has collected over the last several centuries.
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.
The Universe has always been. Matter and energy have always been. There does not need to be a cause.
We start with completely dissimilar definitions of Evolution, and apparently completely dissimilar definitions of Science.
Your whole thought process seems to be in trying to prove that the "Young Earth" concept of creation trumps all evidence that science has collected over the last several centuries.
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.
The Universe has always been. Matter and energy have always been. There does not need to be a cause.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1477553 wrote: What does Patterson have to do with anything?
Good question. You're the one who cited him. What does he have to do with anything?
Good question. You're the one who cited him. What does he have to do with anything?
Science Disproves Evolution
Molten Earth? 1
For more than two centuries, textbooks have taught that the early Earth was molten for 500,000,000 years, because it formed by meteoritic bombardment (a). If so, the heat released by the impacts would have melted the entire Earth many times over (b). Had Earth ever been molten, dense, nonreactive chemical elements such as gold would have sunk to Earth’s core. Gold is 70% denser than lead, yet is found at the Earth’s surface (c).
a. “The textbook view that the earth spent its first half a billion years drenched in magma could be wrong.†John W. Valley, “A Cool Early Earth?†Scientific American, Vol.294, October 2005, p.59.
b. “The kinetic energy (~5x10^38ergs) released in the largest impacts (1.5x10^27g at 9 km/sec) would be several times greater than that required to melt the entire Earth.†George W. Wetherill, “Occurrence of Giant Impacts during the Growth of the Terrestrial Planets,†Science, Vol.228, 17May 1985, p.879.
c. If gold were found only near volcanoes, then one might claim that gold was brought up to the Earth’s surface by volcanoes. However, gold is seldom found near volcanoes.
Suppose that extremely hot water (932°F or 500°C) circulated under the crust—a crust that had never been molten. Gold in high concentrations would go into solution. If the solution then escaped to the Earth’s surface, most gold would precipitate as the water’s pressure and temperature dropped. If this happened, about 250 cubic miles of water must have burst forth to account for the gold found in just one gold mining region in Canada. [See Robert Kerrich, “Nature’s Gold Factory,†Science, Vol.284, 25 June 1999, pp.2101–2102.] If these ideal pressure-temperature conditions did not exist, even more water must come up faster to account for the Earth’s gold deposits. These are hardly the slow processes that evolutionists visualize. On pages 111–147 and 457–463, you will see how, why, and when vast amounts of hot water burst up through faults.
About 40% of all gold mined in the world is from the Witwatersrand Basin in South Africa. This gold, deposited in compressional fractures within the basin, precipitated from water whose temperature exceeded 300°C. [See A. C. Barnicoat et al., “Hydrothermal Gold Mineralization in the Witwatersrand Basin,†Nature, Vol.386, 24April 1997, pp.820–824.]
Robert R. Loucks and John A. Mavrogenes, “Gold Solubility in Supercritical Hydrothermal Brines Measured in Synthetic Fluid Inclusions,†Science, Vol.284, 25June 1999, pp.2159–2163.
[From “In the Beginning†by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
We've been through all this before. The premise being made is all based on the initial erroneous statement. For a start off, Gold is very commonly found near volcanoes. Secondly the entire world is based on geological activity, therefore meaning that the entire world was once not much less than an active volcano. By your logic, therefore, Gold would not have been found on the earth - but it is, so bang goes your theory.
Secondly, Gold (or anything, come to that) doesn't necessarily sink to the bottom of anything, but regardless of what the substance may be, the effect is the same. When you make a cup of coffee, with milk & sugar, the components of the milk, sugar, coffee & water do not separate, despite their having different densities.
Furthermore, objects, such as gold, becomes embedded in other minerals & forced upward by seismic activity.
See Are you worth your weight in Gold? - Minerals Downunder - Australian Mines Atlas - specially written for primary school age children - perhaps you might be able to understand it. Why anyone, such as you, or your Master, cannot accept the blatantly obvious is beyond me.
Also, the earth was not formed by bombardment of meteoric activity, as Brown claims is said. It continues to BE bombarded by meteoric activity, as a result of the gravitational field formed by its mass. It was initially just another chunk of rock, still cooling from the initial infernal heat of the nuclear explosion of the Big Bang - no more than a meteor itself.
Secondly, Gold (or anything, come to that) doesn't necessarily sink to the bottom of anything, but regardless of what the substance may be, the effect is the same. When you make a cup of coffee, with milk & sugar, the components of the milk, sugar, coffee & water do not separate, despite their having different densities.
Furthermore, objects, such as gold, becomes embedded in other minerals & forced upward by seismic activity.
See Are you worth your weight in Gold? - Minerals Downunder - Australian Mines Atlas - specially written for primary school age children - perhaps you might be able to understand it. Why anyone, such as you, or your Master, cannot accept the blatantly obvious is beyond me.
Also, the earth was not formed by bombardment of meteoric activity, as Brown claims is said. It continues to BE bombarded by meteoric activity, as a result of the gravitational field formed by its mass. It was initially just another chunk of rock, still cooling from the initial infernal heat of the nuclear explosion of the Big Bang - no more than a meteor itself.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1477636 wrote: We've been through all this before. The premise being made is all based on the initial erroneous statement. For a start off, Gold is very commonly found near volcanoes.
What volcanoes are gold commonly found near?
Secondly the entire world is based on geological activity, therefore meaning that the entire world was once not much less than an active volcano. By your logic, therefore, Gold would not have been found on the earth - but it is, so bang goes your theory.
Not if the world was molten for 500,000,000 years as evolutionist claim.
Secondly, Gold (or anything, come to that) doesn't necessarily sink to the bottom of anything, but regardless of what the substance may be, the effect is the same. When you make a cup of coffee, with milk & sugar, the components of the milk, sugar, coffee & water do not separate, despite their having different densities.
If you take objects of different densities, and put them in water, the denser objects will sink to the bottom.
Furthermore, objects, such as gold, becomes embedded in other minerals & forced upward by seismic activity.
Not if the world was molten for 500,000,000 years as evolutionist claim.
See Are you worth your weight in Gold? - Minerals Downunder - Australian Mines Atlas - specially written for primary school age children - perhaps you might be able to understand it.
This is true only if the world was not molten for 500,000,000 years as evolutionist claim.
Why anyone, such as you, cannot accept the blatantly obvious is because of your evidence free erroneous preconceptions.
Also, the earth was not formed by bombardment of meteoric activity, as Brown claims is said.
When did Brown ever say that? As far as I know, he didn't! Just another example of you putting words in his mouth. He has concluded that it was created based on the evidence:
"It seems obvious that the genetic code and the accompanying transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems were produced simultaneously in each living organism by an extremely high intelligence."
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 15. Codes, Programs, and Information
"Basic chemistry does not support the evolution of life."
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 28. Chemical Elements of Life
"Living cells contain thousands of different chemicals, some acidic, others basic. Many chemicals would react with others unless an intricate system of chemical barriers and buffers already existed. If living things evolved, these barriers and buffers must also have evolved—but at just the right time to prevent harmful chemical reactions. How could such precise, seemingly coordinated, virtually miraculous events have happened for each of millions of species?
"All living organisms are maintained by thousands of chemical pathways, each involving a long series of complex chemical reactions. For example, the clotting of blood, which involves 20–30 steps, is absolutely vital to healing a wound. However, clotting could be fatal if it happened inside the body. Omitting one of the many steps, inserting an unwanted step, or altering the timing of a step would probably cause death. If one thing goes wrong, all the earlier marvelous steps that worked flawlessly were in vain. Evidently, these complex pathways were created as an intricate, highly integrated system."
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 31. Barriers, Buffers, and Chemical Pathways
"Based on metamorphosis alone, evolution 'breaks down.'
Obviously, the vast amount of information that directs every stage of a larva’s and an adult’s development, including metamorphosis, must reside in its genetic material at the beginning. This fits only creation."
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 36. Metamorphosis
"Different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other. At the broadest level, the animal kingdom depends on oxygen produced by the plant kingdom. Plants, in turn, depend on carbon dioxide produced by the animal kingdom.
"More local and specific examples include fig trees and the fig gall wasp,a the yucca plant and the yucca moth,b many parasites and their hosts, and pollen-bearing plants and the honeybee. Even members of the honeybee family, consisting of the queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as the plant before the animal, or one member of the honeybee family before the others), it could not have survived. Because all members of the group obviously have survived, they must have come into existence at essentially the same time. In other words, creation."
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 38. Symbiotic Relationships
"But the Moon does exist. If it was not pulled or splashed from Earth, was not built up from smaller particles near its present orbit, and was not captured from outside its present orbit, only one hypothesis remains: the Moon was created in its present orbit."
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 48. Origin of the Moon
"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.)"
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 53. A Beginning
"Detailed analyses have long shown that neither stars nor planets could form from interstellar gas clouds. To do so, either by first forming dust particles or by direct gravitational collapse of the gas, would require vastly more time than the alleged age of the universe. An obvious alternative is that stars and planets were created."
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 58. Interstellar Gas
"How could the first living cell begin? That is a greater miracle than for bacteria to evolve into man. How could that first cell reproduce? Speaking of reproduction, how could sexual reproduction evolve? Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution. Both must come into existence at about the same time—in other words, by creation."
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - What Questions Could I Ask Evolutionists?
It continues to BE bombarded by meteoric activity, as a result of the gravitational field formed by its mass. It was initially just another chunk of rock, still cooling from the initial infernal heat of the nuclear explosion of the Big Bang - no more than a meteor itself.
That is evidence free evolutionist imagination.
What volcanoes are gold commonly found near?
Secondly the entire world is based on geological activity, therefore meaning that the entire world was once not much less than an active volcano. By your logic, therefore, Gold would not have been found on the earth - but it is, so bang goes your theory.
Not if the world was molten for 500,000,000 years as evolutionist claim.
Secondly, Gold (or anything, come to that) doesn't necessarily sink to the bottom of anything, but regardless of what the substance may be, the effect is the same. When you make a cup of coffee, with milk & sugar, the components of the milk, sugar, coffee & water do not separate, despite their having different densities.
If you take objects of different densities, and put them in water, the denser objects will sink to the bottom.
Furthermore, objects, such as gold, becomes embedded in other minerals & forced upward by seismic activity.
Not if the world was molten for 500,000,000 years as evolutionist claim.
See Are you worth your weight in Gold? - Minerals Downunder - Australian Mines Atlas - specially written for primary school age children - perhaps you might be able to understand it.
This is true only if the world was not molten for 500,000,000 years as evolutionist claim.
Why anyone, such as you, cannot accept the blatantly obvious is because of your evidence free erroneous preconceptions.
Also, the earth was not formed by bombardment of meteoric activity, as Brown claims is said.
When did Brown ever say that? As far as I know, he didn't! Just another example of you putting words in his mouth. He has concluded that it was created based on the evidence:
"It seems obvious that the genetic code and the accompanying transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems were produced simultaneously in each living organism by an extremely high intelligence."
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 15. Codes, Programs, and Information
"Basic chemistry does not support the evolution of life."
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 28. Chemical Elements of Life
"Living cells contain thousands of different chemicals, some acidic, others basic. Many chemicals would react with others unless an intricate system of chemical barriers and buffers already existed. If living things evolved, these barriers and buffers must also have evolved—but at just the right time to prevent harmful chemical reactions. How could such precise, seemingly coordinated, virtually miraculous events have happened for each of millions of species?
"All living organisms are maintained by thousands of chemical pathways, each involving a long series of complex chemical reactions. For example, the clotting of blood, which involves 20–30 steps, is absolutely vital to healing a wound. However, clotting could be fatal if it happened inside the body. Omitting one of the many steps, inserting an unwanted step, or altering the timing of a step would probably cause death. If one thing goes wrong, all the earlier marvelous steps that worked flawlessly were in vain. Evidently, these complex pathways were created as an intricate, highly integrated system."
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 31. Barriers, Buffers, and Chemical Pathways
"Based on metamorphosis alone, evolution 'breaks down.'
Obviously, the vast amount of information that directs every stage of a larva’s and an adult’s development, including metamorphosis, must reside in its genetic material at the beginning. This fits only creation."
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 36. Metamorphosis
"Different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other. At the broadest level, the animal kingdom depends on oxygen produced by the plant kingdom. Plants, in turn, depend on carbon dioxide produced by the animal kingdom.
"More local and specific examples include fig trees and the fig gall wasp,a the yucca plant and the yucca moth,b many parasites and their hosts, and pollen-bearing plants and the honeybee. Even members of the honeybee family, consisting of the queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as the plant before the animal, or one member of the honeybee family before the others), it could not have survived. Because all members of the group obviously have survived, they must have come into existence at essentially the same time. In other words, creation."
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 38. Symbiotic Relationships
"But the Moon does exist. If it was not pulled or splashed from Earth, was not built up from smaller particles near its present orbit, and was not captured from outside its present orbit, only one hypothesis remains: the Moon was created in its present orbit."
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 48. Origin of the Moon
"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.)"
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 53. A Beginning
"Detailed analyses have long shown that neither stars nor planets could form from interstellar gas clouds. To do so, either by first forming dust particles or by direct gravitational collapse of the gas, would require vastly more time than the alleged age of the universe. An obvious alternative is that stars and planets were created."
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 58. Interstellar Gas
"How could the first living cell begin? That is a greater miracle than for bacteria to evolve into man. How could that first cell reproduce? Speaking of reproduction, how could sexual reproduction evolve? Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution. Both must come into existence at about the same time—in other words, by creation."
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - What Questions Could I Ask Evolutionists?
It continues to BE bombarded by meteoric activity, as a result of the gravitational field formed by its mass. It was initially just another chunk of rock, still cooling from the initial infernal heat of the nuclear explosion of the Big Bang - no more than a meteor itself.
That is evidence free evolutionist imagination.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1477656 wrote: What volcanoes are gold commonly found near?
Fiery Volcano In Colombia Spewing Gold - NYTimes.com
Not if the world was molten for 500,000,000 years as evolutionist claim.
Huh? A volcano is basically an outlet of the remaining molten rock beneath the outer cooled crust. The existence of volanoes is evidence of the earth having been molten in the first place.
If you take objects of different densities, and put them in water, the denser objects will sink to the bottom.
So, if you put some gold balls in a cup, they will end up in the saucer?
Why anyone, such as you, cannot accept the blatantly obvious is because of your evidence free erroneous preconceptions.
These are not preconceptions. These are visible facts, which are still visible, which also makes them non-erroneous.
When did Brown ever say that? As far as I know, he didn't! Just another example of you putting words in his mouth. He has concluded that it was created based on the evidence:
In the very first paragraph of your interminal pasting. Try reading them once in a while before you paste them.
Remainder of pasting ignored as being non-relevant twaddle, and evidence of nothing. Note - a person's individual opinion without hard facts to support it is NOT evidence (i.e. the only thing that Dolt Brown's ravings are evidence of is of how mentally imbalanced he is).
Fiery Volcano In Colombia Spewing Gold - NYTimes.com
Not if the world was molten for 500,000,000 years as evolutionist claim.
Huh? A volcano is basically an outlet of the remaining molten rock beneath the outer cooled crust. The existence of volanoes is evidence of the earth having been molten in the first place.
If you take objects of different densities, and put them in water, the denser objects will sink to the bottom.
So, if you put some gold balls in a cup, they will end up in the saucer?
Why anyone, such as you, cannot accept the blatantly obvious is because of your evidence free erroneous preconceptions.
These are not preconceptions. These are visible facts, which are still visible, which also makes them non-erroneous.
When did Brown ever say that? As far as I know, he didn't! Just another example of you putting words in his mouth. He has concluded that it was created based on the evidence:
In the very first paragraph of your interminal pasting. Try reading them once in a while before you paste them.
Remainder of pasting ignored as being non-relevant twaddle, and evidence of nothing. Note - a person's individual opinion without hard facts to support it is NOT evidence (i.e. the only thing that Dolt Brown's ravings are evidence of is of how mentally imbalanced he is).
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1477709 wrote: Fiery Volcano In Colombia Spewing Gold - NYTimes.com
The quote you are referring to states that gold is seldom found near volcanoes, not never.
A volcano is basically an outlet of the remaining molten rock beneath the outer cooled crust. The existence of volanoes is evidence of the earth having been molten in the first place.
False! The existence of volcanoes is evidence of the tremendous forces unleashed by the Flood. See: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Part II:
A molten Earth is impossible for the reasons given. For example: "Had Earth ever been molten, dense, nonreactive chemical elements such as gold would have sunk to Earth’s core. Gold is 70% denser than lead, yet is found at the Earth’s surface."
So, if you put some gold balls in a cup, they will end up in the saucer?
You are free to believe what you wish.
These are not preconceptions. These are visible facts, which are still visible, which also makes them non-erroneous.
They are erroneous preconceptions that are not based on visible facts.
In the very first paragraph of your interminal pasting. Try reading them once in a while before you paste them.
Perhaps you should try reading them before you make erroneous comments. Let's repeat: "For more than two centuries, textbooks have taught that the early Earth was molten for 500,000,000 years, because it formed by meteoritic bombardment."
Notice it is not Brown making that statement, but textbooks. The next sentence by Brown is: "If so, the heat released by the impacts would have melted the entire Earth many times over."
Another example of your erroneous preconceptions.
Remainder of pasting ignored as being non-relevant twaddle, and evidence of nothing.
Only by those who are blinded by their evidence free erroneous preconceptions.
Note - a person's individual opinion without hard facts to support it is NOT evidence
You have described yourself very well.
(i.e. the only thing that Dolt Brown's ravings are evidence of is of how mentally imbalanced he is).
The only thing that your evidence free irrelevant ravings are evidence of is of how mentally imbalanced you are!
Walt Brown's conclusions are confirmed by the following scientists:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
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. [How does your resume compare?]
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: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World
The quote you are referring to states that gold is seldom found near volcanoes, not never.
A volcano is basically an outlet of the remaining molten rock beneath the outer cooled crust. The existence of volanoes is evidence of the earth having been molten in the first place.
False! The existence of volcanoes is evidence of the tremendous forces unleashed by the Flood. See: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Part II:
A molten Earth is impossible for the reasons given. For example: "Had Earth ever been molten, dense, nonreactive chemical elements such as gold would have sunk to Earth’s core. Gold is 70% denser than lead, yet is found at the Earth’s surface."
So, if you put some gold balls in a cup, they will end up in the saucer?
You are free to believe what you wish.
These are not preconceptions. These are visible facts, which are still visible, which also makes them non-erroneous.
They are erroneous preconceptions that are not based on visible facts.
In the very first paragraph of your interminal pasting. Try reading them once in a while before you paste them.
Perhaps you should try reading them before you make erroneous comments. Let's repeat: "For more than two centuries, textbooks have taught that the early Earth was molten for 500,000,000 years, because it formed by meteoritic bombardment."
Notice it is not Brown making that statement, but textbooks. The next sentence by Brown is: "If so, the heat released by the impacts would have melted the entire Earth many times over."
Another example of your erroneous preconceptions.
Remainder of pasting ignored as being non-relevant twaddle, and evidence of nothing.
Only by those who are blinded by their evidence free erroneous preconceptions.
Note - a person's individual opinion without hard facts to support it is NOT evidence
You have described yourself very well.
(i.e. the only thing that Dolt Brown's ravings are evidence of is of how mentally imbalanced he is).
The only thing that your evidence free irrelevant ravings are evidence of is of how mentally imbalanced you are!
Walt Brown's conclusions are confirmed by the following scientists:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
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. [How does your resume compare?]
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: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1477735 wrote: The quote you are referring to states that gold is seldom found near volcanoes, not never.
Which you claim never happens.
False! The existence of volcanoes is evidence of the tremendous forces unleashed by the Flood. See: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Part II:
That is Brown's theory, which is not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. An unfounded theory by a single nutter in the face of all other scientific evidence is NOT evidence.
A molten Earth is impossible for the reasons given. For example: "Had Earth ever been molten, dense, nonreactive chemical elements such as gold would have sunk to Earth’s core. Gold is 70% denser than lead, yet is found at the Earth’s surface."
No it wouldn't. At the centre of the earth the vast majority of the earth's mass, the source of gravity, is straight up.
You are free to believe what you wish.
I do. I believe what is proved to be true. You would have me believe otherwise.
They are erroneous preconceptions that are not based on visible facts.
Wrong on both counts. They are not erroneous, plus they are based on visible facts.
Perhaps you should try reading them before you make erroneous comments. Let's repeat: "For more than two centuries, textbooks have taught that the early Earth was molten for 500,000,000 years, because it formed by meteoritic bombardment."
Notice it is not Brown making that statement, but textbooks. The next sentence by Brown is: "If so, the heat released by the impacts would have melted the entire Earth many times over."
Brown was stating that the textbooks stated that the earth was formed by meteoric bombardment. They do not. They state that it started as a ball of molten rock. Once again he states a falsehood as a fact & bases his premise on that falsehood.
Walt Brown's conclusions are confirmed by the following scientists:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The famous list taken from Who's Who.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
WHERE?
Astronomical journal
WHERE?
Astrophysics and space science
WHERE?
Astrophysical journalWHERE?
BioscienceWHERE?
GeologyWHERE?
IcarusWHERE?
Journal of GeologyWHERE?
Journal of Theoretical BiologyWHERE?
NatureWHERE?
New scientistWHERE?
Physics TodayWHERE?
Physical reviewWHERE?
Physical review dWHERE?
Physical review lettersWHERE?
ScienceWHERE?
Space science reviewsWHERE?
The American Journal of Science and Arts WHERE?
Come on, now. You've listed all these names from Who's Who & a list of publications from the local Newsagent. Now. surely somewhere in all these publications & all these names you must be able to come up with a single link where any one of those names says anything that Brown CLAIMS they have said. You can't, and you won't for the simple reason that THE SOURCE DOESN'T EXIST. THEY NEVER SAID WHAT BROWN SAYS THEY SAID.
You keep pasting the same list from the appendix of Brown's comic without providing any quantification to verify the claims. I have challenged you to do so time & time again. All you have ever done in response is to ignore the challenge and/or change the subject and/or just paste a load more garbage, hoping to make the question go away. It is an obvious question that anyone with a mind of their own should ask. If this theory is so plausible & all these scientists back it up in such famous publications, then how come it remains so obscure, and renounced & ridiculed by other reputable scientists.
Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow.
Zoe the Cat has a PHD (Believe It: Zoe the Cat, PhD. | TIME.com)
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. [How does your resume compare?]
I have never disputed his previous record. Only after he flipped his lid - quite possibly brought about by mental trauma from his experiences in the military - something which is all too common, I'm afraid.
How about this Wikipedia article all about him:
Walt Brown (creationist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It states how scientists have published papers about his theories. The are probably the ones he refers to in his imaginary list. What he fails to mention, however, is that they are REBUTTING his theories, NOT agreeing with them. In the article there isn't a single reference to anyone who agrees with him. It even says other Creationist societies have rebuked it.
Which you claim never happens.
False! The existence of volcanoes is evidence of the tremendous forces unleashed by the Flood. See: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Part II:
That is Brown's theory, which is not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. An unfounded theory by a single nutter in the face of all other scientific evidence is NOT evidence.
A molten Earth is impossible for the reasons given. For example: "Had Earth ever been molten, dense, nonreactive chemical elements such as gold would have sunk to Earth’s core. Gold is 70% denser than lead, yet is found at the Earth’s surface."
No it wouldn't. At the centre of the earth the vast majority of the earth's mass, the source of gravity, is straight up.
You are free to believe what you wish.
I do. I believe what is proved to be true. You would have me believe otherwise.
They are erroneous preconceptions that are not based on visible facts.
Wrong on both counts. They are not erroneous, plus they are based on visible facts.
Perhaps you should try reading them before you make erroneous comments. Let's repeat: "For more than two centuries, textbooks have taught that the early Earth was molten for 500,000,000 years, because it formed by meteoritic bombardment."
Notice it is not Brown making that statement, but textbooks. The next sentence by Brown is: "If so, the heat released by the impacts would have melted the entire Earth many times over."
Brown was stating that the textbooks stated that the earth was formed by meteoric bombardment. They do not. They state that it started as a ball of molten rock. Once again he states a falsehood as a fact & bases his premise on that falsehood.
Walt Brown's conclusions are confirmed by the following scientists:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The famous list taken from Who's Who.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
WHERE?
Astronomical journal
WHERE?
Astrophysics and space science
WHERE?
Astrophysical journalWHERE?
BioscienceWHERE?
GeologyWHERE?
IcarusWHERE?
Journal of GeologyWHERE?
Journal of Theoretical BiologyWHERE?
NatureWHERE?
New scientistWHERE?
Physics TodayWHERE?
Physical reviewWHERE?
Physical review dWHERE?
Physical review lettersWHERE?
ScienceWHERE?
Space science reviewsWHERE?
The American Journal of Science and Arts WHERE?
Come on, now. You've listed all these names from Who's Who & a list of publications from the local Newsagent. Now. surely somewhere in all these publications & all these names you must be able to come up with a single link where any one of those names says anything that Brown CLAIMS they have said. You can't, and you won't for the simple reason that THE SOURCE DOESN'T EXIST. THEY NEVER SAID WHAT BROWN SAYS THEY SAID.
You keep pasting the same list from the appendix of Brown's comic without providing any quantification to verify the claims. I have challenged you to do so time & time again. All you have ever done in response is to ignore the challenge and/or change the subject and/or just paste a load more garbage, hoping to make the question go away. It is an obvious question that anyone with a mind of their own should ask. If this theory is so plausible & all these scientists back it up in such famous publications, then how come it remains so obscure, and renounced & ridiculed by other reputable scientists.
Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow.
Zoe the Cat has a PHD (Believe It: Zoe the Cat, PhD. | TIME.com)
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. [How does your resume compare?]
I have never disputed his previous record. Only after he flipped his lid - quite possibly brought about by mental trauma from his experiences in the military - something which is all too common, I'm afraid.
How about this Wikipedia article all about him:
Walt Brown (creationist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It states how scientists have published papers about his theories. The are probably the ones he refers to in his imaginary list. What he fails to mention, however, is that they are REBUTTING his theories, NOT agreeing with them. In the article there isn't a single reference to anyone who agrees with him. It even says other Creationist societies have rebuked it.
Science Disproves Evolution
I'd be fascinated to see where Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan backs anything Walt Brown says. Obvious proof that the book is full of quotes taken out of context to reinforce the invented science of the YEC.
I read Edward Lear's Book of Nonsense when I was a child. I had no idea there was another book of the same name by Walt Brown
I read Edward Lear's Book of Nonsense when I was a child. I had no idea there was another book of the same name by Walt Brown
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
How about reading this - from a Creationist website:
Hydroplate theory - creation.com
Hydroplate theory - creation.com
Science Disproves Evolution
So even Creationists themselves balk at the invented science of Mr Walt Brown. If you cant convince them Pahu, methinks you should maybe consider what the real scientists have to say
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1477776 wrote: So even Creationists themselves balk at the invented science of Mr Walt Brown. If you cant convince them Pahu, methinks you should maybe consider what the real scientists have to say
No doubt he'll only argue that with another pasted copy of his book.
No doubt he'll only argue that with another pasted copy of his book.
Science Disproves Evolution
Molten Earth? 2
Radioactive dating of certain zircon minerals also contradicts a molten Earth. Trace elements within those zircons show that the zircons formed on a cold Earth (less than 212°F) (d). However, based on radioactive dating, those zircons formed billions of years ago when, according to evolutionists, it should have been molten (exceeding 1,800°F)—an obvious contradiction. Either the molten Earth idea or the radioactive dating method must be wrong; perhaps both are wrong.
Meteorites contain much more of the element xenon than Earth’s surface rocks, relative to other noble (inert) gases such as helium, neon, and argon. Had Earth formed by meteoritic bombardment, Earth’s surface rocks would have a different composition, and our atmosphere would contain up to ten times more xenon than it has (e). If Earth did not evolve by meteoritic bombardment, it may have begun as one large body. [See “Melting the Inner Earth†on pages 573–576.]
d. John W. Valley, “A Cool Early Earth?†Scientific American, Vol.294, October 2005, pp.58–65.
e. “Meteorites, he notes, contain 10 times as much xenon, relative to other noble gasses, than occurs in Earth’s atmosphere. In addition, the relative abundance of xenon isotopes found in meteorites doesn’t jibe with the pattern found on Earth. If meteorites did deliver most of the water to our planet, they also would have provided xenon, and our atmosphere would have to have a very different composition, Owen maintains.†Ron Cowen, “Found: Primordial Water,†Science News, Vol.156, 30October 1999, p.285.
[From “In the Beginning†by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1477778 wrote: No doubt he'll only argue that with another pasted copy of his book.
Nothing if not reliable. Not even any attempt to argue that one. No point really. He knows when he's beaten, even if he won't admit it.
Nothing if not reliable. Not even any attempt to argue that one. No point really. He knows when he's beaten, even if he won't admit it.
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1477771 wrote: I'd be fascinated to see where Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan backs anything Walt Brown says.
A Beginning
Heat always flows from a hot body to a cold body. If the universe were infinitely old—has always been here—everything would have the same temperature. Because temperatures vary, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning. (A beginning suggests a Creator.)a
a . “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.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 53. A Beginning
Genetic Information
Information never self-assembles. The genetic information in the DNA of each human cell is roughly equivalent to a library of 4,000 books.a
a . Carl Sagan showed, using simple calculations, why one cell’s worth of genetic information approximates 4,000 books of printed information. Each of Sagan’s 4,000 books had 500 pages with 300 words per page. [See Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden (New York: Random House, 1977), p. 25.]
Each book would have a volume of about 50 cubic inches. An adult human’s body contains about 1014 cells. About 800 cubic miles have been eroded from the Grand Canyon. Therefore, we can say that if every cell in one person’s body were reduced to 4,000 books, they would fill the Grand Canyon 98 times.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 33. Genetic Information
The Origin of Comets
Early scientists discovered other types of organic matter in comets “similar to organic matter of unquestioned biological origin on Earth,†and concluded that they came from “decomposed organic bodies.â€2
“We know that it is hard to find a comet without the spectral features of C2, C3, and CN in their comas. Huggins was struck by the fact that the material in the comets was similar to organic matter of unquestioned biological origin on Earth. Many scientists cautiously concluded that the carbon compounds found by Huggins [in 1868] in the comas of comets were, as one of his contemporaries wrote, ‘the result of the decomposition of organic bodies.’ †Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, Comet (New York: Ballantine Books, 1997), p. 148.
Fear of comets as omens of death existed in most ancient cultures.11
“But the association of comets with catastrophe remains curiously steady through the generations.†Sagan and Druyan, p. 279.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Comets
A Beginning
Heat always flows from a hot body to a cold body. If the universe were infinitely old—has always been here—everything would have the same temperature. Because temperatures vary, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning. (A beginning suggests a Creator.)a
a . “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.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 53. A Beginning
Genetic Information
Information never self-assembles. The genetic information in the DNA of each human cell is roughly equivalent to a library of 4,000 books.a
a . Carl Sagan showed, using simple calculations, why one cell’s worth of genetic information approximates 4,000 books of printed information. Each of Sagan’s 4,000 books had 500 pages with 300 words per page. [See Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden (New York: Random House, 1977), p. 25.]
Each book would have a volume of about 50 cubic inches. An adult human’s body contains about 1014 cells. About 800 cubic miles have been eroded from the Grand Canyon. Therefore, we can say that if every cell in one person’s body were reduced to 4,000 books, they would fill the Grand Canyon 98 times.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 33. Genetic Information
The Origin of Comets
Early scientists discovered other types of organic matter in comets “similar to organic matter of unquestioned biological origin on Earth,†and concluded that they came from “decomposed organic bodies.â€2
“We know that it is hard to find a comet without the spectral features of C2, C3, and CN in their comas. Huggins was struck by the fact that the material in the comets was similar to organic matter of unquestioned biological origin on Earth. Many scientists cautiously concluded that the carbon compounds found by Huggins [in 1868] in the comas of comets were, as one of his contemporaries wrote, ‘the result of the decomposition of organic bodies.’ †Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, Comet (New York: Ballantine Books, 1997), p. 148.
Fear of comets as omens of death existed in most ancient cultures.11
“But the association of comets with catastrophe remains curiously steady through the generations.†Sagan and Druyan, p. 279.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Comets
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
I'll not go into the rest of your inane pasting, but the very first one is a perfect example of how Dolt Brown deliberately takes quotes totally out of context in order to give a misleading impression. Look at the REST of the quote:
The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. 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? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]
You see, taken in its REAL context the argument is AGAINST tho notion of the world being formed by a God. It in no way supports any of what Dolt Brown is suggesting, and I have no doubt that all the rest of his so called citations are likely to reveal the same sort of thing. At best, in support of the Religious point of view, he is saying that is there were to be a God, then he leaves things to EVOLVE naturally.
Have you ever researched his claims & read the FULL items of the selected phrases that he so conveniently cherry picks? I very much doubt it. You just see that the Great Messiah Brown said this, therefore it has to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
If Brown were to quote me on saying "If I were to say that I believe in God, it would be an outright lie, because the whole notion of a God is an bullshitting idiot's get-out clause for anything he doesn't undertand", he would just use the highlighted part to 'prove' that I apparently believe in some non-existent God. Is there not something in the Bible that says "Thou shalt not bear False Witness", because that's exactly what he's doing.
The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. 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? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]
You see, taken in its REAL context the argument is AGAINST tho notion of the world being formed by a God. It in no way supports any of what Dolt Brown is suggesting, and I have no doubt that all the rest of his so called citations are likely to reveal the same sort of thing. At best, in support of the Religious point of view, he is saying that is there were to be a God, then he leaves things to EVOLVE naturally.
Have you ever researched his claims & read the FULL items of the selected phrases that he so conveniently cherry picks? I very much doubt it. You just see that the Great Messiah Brown said this, therefore it has to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
If Brown were to quote me on saying "If I were to say that I believe in God, it would be an outright lie, because the whole notion of a God is an bullshitting idiot's get-out clause for anything he doesn't undertand", he would just use the highlighted part to 'prove' that I apparently believe in some non-existent God. Is there not something in the Bible that says "Thou shalt not bear False Witness", because that's exactly what he's doing.
Science Disproves Evolution
The very suggestion of these out of context quotes and attributions to scientists by Brown, has been bought up time and time again but Pahu persistently refuses to accept it.
Your (Fourpart) example shows very clearly what Pahu refuses to understand. When quoted fully, Hawking and Sagan expresses nothing of what Brown attributes.
Its a sham. The whole thing. False science and poor research for the weak minded. Belief an a higher being, a God, if that is what one wishes, has nothing whatsoever to do with this merit less bunkum.
Your (Fourpart) example shows very clearly what Pahu refuses to understand. When quoted fully, Hawking and Sagan expresses nothing of what Brown attributes.
Its a sham. The whole thing. False science and poor research for the weak minded. Belief an a higher being, a God, if that is what one wishes, has nothing whatsoever to do with this merit less bunkum.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1478099 wrote: The very suggestion of these out of context quotes and attributions to scientists by Brown, has been bought up time and time again but Pahu persistently refuses to accept it.
Your (Fourpart) example shows very clearly what Pahu refuses to understand. When quoted fully, Hawking and Sagan expresses nothing of what Brown attributes.
Its a sham. The whole thing. False science and poor research for the weak minded. Belief an a higher being, a God, if that is what one wishes, has nothing whatsoever to do with this merit less bunkum.
It wouldn't be so laughable if he checked the source of the quotes. It took me all of about 15 seconds to copy & paste the quote into Google to find the quote in its entireity, yet a mindless automaton, such as Pahu blindly believes anything his Master tells him without questioning it. Time & time I have provided evidence to disprove Brown's claims. When such irrefutable evidence is presented no arguments are made in his defence (not that there is any defence), rather than just paste a load more garbage, using more out of context quotes. I took the first quote made, which is bound to be the Jewel in his Crown & proved the claim to be blatantly faked, taken out of all context. When an opening argument is proved to be as phoney as this, there's not much point in checking any further. I've no doubt that if I were to put the rest of the quotes into Google to find their REAL context I'd probably come up with exactly the same outcome. Brown is clearly a charlatan & has even been ostracised as such by other Creationist organisations.
Your (Fourpart) example shows very clearly what Pahu refuses to understand. When quoted fully, Hawking and Sagan expresses nothing of what Brown attributes.
Its a sham. The whole thing. False science and poor research for the weak minded. Belief an a higher being, a God, if that is what one wishes, has nothing whatsoever to do with this merit less bunkum.
It wouldn't be so laughable if he checked the source of the quotes. It took me all of about 15 seconds to copy & paste the quote into Google to find the quote in its entireity, yet a mindless automaton, such as Pahu blindly believes anything his Master tells him without questioning it. Time & time I have provided evidence to disprove Brown's claims. When such irrefutable evidence is presented no arguments are made in his defence (not that there is any defence), rather than just paste a load more garbage, using more out of context quotes. I took the first quote made, which is bound to be the Jewel in his Crown & proved the claim to be blatantly faked, taken out of all context. When an opening argument is proved to be as phoney as this, there's not much point in checking any further. I've no doubt that if I were to put the rest of the quotes into Google to find their REAL context I'd probably come up with exactly the same outcome. Brown is clearly a charlatan & has even been ostracised as such by other Creationist organisations.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1478064 wrote: I'll not go into the rest of your inane pasting, but the very first one is a perfect example of how Dolt Brown deliberately takes quotes totally out of context in order to give a misleading impression. Look at the REST of the quote:
The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. 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? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]
You see, taken in its REAL context the argument is AGAINST tho notion of the world being formed by a God. It in no way supports any of what Dolt Brown is suggesting, and I have no doubt that all the rest of his so called citations are likely to reveal the same sort of thing. At best, in support of the Religious point of view, he is saying that is there were to be a God, then he leaves things to EVOLVE naturally.
Have you ever researched his claims & read the FULL items of the selected phrases that he so conveniently cherry picks? I very much doubt it. You just see that the Great Messiah Brown said this, therefore it has to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
If Brown were to quote me on saying "If I were to say that I believe in God, it would be an outright lie, because the whole notion of a God is an bullshitting idiot's get-out clause for anything he doesn't undertand", he would just use the highlighted part to 'prove' that I apparently believe in some non-existent God. Is there not something in the Bible that says "Thou shalt not bear False Witness", because that's exactly what he's doing.
The fact remains that Hawking did say “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.†That is a statement of fact that confirms Brown's conclusion. Most of what he said before that statement is also true. The rest of the quote is evidence free speculation. There is no relation to your example nor has it have anything to do with bearing false witness. All I said was the scientists on my list confirm Brown's conclusions. It doesn't matter that most of them believe in evolution. The fact is what they did say. If you examine the list you will find they all confirm his conclusions despite what you want to believe.
The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. 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? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]
You see, taken in its REAL context the argument is AGAINST tho notion of the world being formed by a God. It in no way supports any of what Dolt Brown is suggesting, and I have no doubt that all the rest of his so called citations are likely to reveal the same sort of thing. At best, in support of the Religious point of view, he is saying that is there were to be a God, then he leaves things to EVOLVE naturally.
Have you ever researched his claims & read the FULL items of the selected phrases that he so conveniently cherry picks? I very much doubt it. You just see that the Great Messiah Brown said this, therefore it has to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
If Brown were to quote me on saying "If I were to say that I believe in God, it would be an outright lie, because the whole notion of a God is an bullshitting idiot's get-out clause for anything he doesn't undertand", he would just use the highlighted part to 'prove' that I apparently believe in some non-existent God. Is there not something in the Bible that says "Thou shalt not bear False Witness", because that's exactly what he's doing.
The fact remains that Hawking did say “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.†That is a statement of fact that confirms Brown's conclusion. Most of what he said before that statement is also true. The rest of the quote is evidence free speculation. There is no relation to your example nor has it have anything to do with bearing false witness. All I said was the scientists on my list confirm Brown's conclusions. It doesn't matter that most of them believe in evolution. The fact is what they did say. If you examine the list you will find they all confirm his conclusions despite what you want to believe.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1478123 wrote: The fact remains that Hawking did say “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.†That is a statement of fact that confirms Brown's conclusion. Most of what he said before that statement is also true. The rest of the quote is evidence free speculation. There is no relation to your example nor has it have anything to do with bearing false witness. All I said was the scientists on my list confirm Brown's conclusions. It doesn't matter that most of them believe in evolution. The fact is what they did say. If you examine the list you will find they all confirm his conclusions despite what you want to believe.
It does nothing of the sort. It means the exact opposite. Brown has just picked & chosen a few words, with no mention of what the REAL context was about. That is blatant fraud. There's no 2 ways about it.
Basically, what Hawking is saying is that if an erroneous presumption were true, then the ensuing erroneous conclusion of there being a God would obviously follow. However, with the evidence existing to the contrary of that presumption, then the subsequent conclusion is also shown to be false. All Brown does is to conveniently ignore the "However" bit.
Selectively Cherry Picking portions of quotes in order to mislead the reader proves 2 things:
1. The desperation of the author to support a flawed argument with false assertations.
2. The lack of intelligence on the part of the reader who accepts it at face value without cross referencing.
It does nothing of the sort. It means the exact opposite. Brown has just picked & chosen a few words, with no mention of what the REAL context was about. That is blatant fraud. There's no 2 ways about it.
Basically, what Hawking is saying is that if an erroneous presumption were true, then the ensuing erroneous conclusion of there being a God would obviously follow. However, with the evidence existing to the contrary of that presumption, then the subsequent conclusion is also shown to be false. All Brown does is to conveniently ignore the "However" bit.
Selectively Cherry Picking portions of quotes in order to mislead the reader proves 2 things:
1. The desperation of the author to support a flawed argument with false assertations.
2. The lack of intelligence on the part of the reader who accepts it at face value without cross referencing.
Science Disproves Evolution
Round and round and round she goes,
Where she'll stop, nobody knows,
Where she'll stop, nobody knows,
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Originally Posted by Pahu:
The fact remains that Hawking did say “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.†That is a statement of fact that confirms Brown's conclusion. Most of what he said before that statement is also true. The rest of the quote is evidence free speculation. There is no relation to your example nor has it have anything to do with bearing false witness. All I said was the scientists on my list confirm Brown's conclusions. It doesn't matter that most of them believe in evolution. The fact is what they did say. If you examine the list you will find they all confirm his conclusions despite what you want to believe.
FourPart;1478125 wrote: It does nothing of the sort. It means the exact opposite. Brown has just picked & chosen a few words, with no mention of what the REAL context was about. That is blatant fraud. There's no 2 ways about it.
The fact remains that Hawking confirmed what Brown said; that since the universe had a beginning there must have been a Creator.
Basically, what Hawking is saying is that if an erroneous presumption were true, then the ensuing erroneous conclusion of there being a God would obviously follow. However, with the evidence existing to the contrary of that presumption, then the subsequent conclusion is also shown to be false. All Brown does is to conveniently ignore the "However" bit.
Putting words in his mouth to justify your erroneous conclusions? The fact is Hawking said: "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.†That's what he actually said and it is true. What follows is evidence free speculation. But of course you are unwilling to accept facts in favor of your evidence free erroneous pre-conceptions.
Selectively Cherry Picking portions of quotes in order to mislead the reader proves 2 things:
1. The desperation of the author to support a flawed argument with false assertations.
2. The lack of intelligence on the part of the reader who accepts it at face value without cross referencing.
Then why do you insist on indulging in such practices?
The fact remains that Hawking did say “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.†That is a statement of fact that confirms Brown's conclusion. Most of what he said before that statement is also true. The rest of the quote is evidence free speculation. There is no relation to your example nor has it have anything to do with bearing false witness. All I said was the scientists on my list confirm Brown's conclusions. It doesn't matter that most of them believe in evolution. The fact is what they did say. If you examine the list you will find they all confirm his conclusions despite what you want to believe.
FourPart;1478125 wrote: It does nothing of the sort. It means the exact opposite. Brown has just picked & chosen a few words, with no mention of what the REAL context was about. That is blatant fraud. There's no 2 ways about it.
The fact remains that Hawking confirmed what Brown said; that since the universe had a beginning there must have been a Creator.
Basically, what Hawking is saying is that if an erroneous presumption were true, then the ensuing erroneous conclusion of there being a God would obviously follow. However, with the evidence existing to the contrary of that presumption, then the subsequent conclusion is also shown to be false. All Brown does is to conveniently ignore the "However" bit.
Putting words in his mouth to justify your erroneous conclusions? The fact is Hawking said: "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.†That's what he actually said and it is true. What follows is evidence free speculation. But of course you are unwilling to accept facts in favor of your evidence free erroneous pre-conceptions.
Selectively Cherry Picking portions of quotes in order to mislead the reader proves 2 things:
1. The desperation of the author to support a flawed argument with false assertations.
2. The lack of intelligence on the part of the reader who accepts it at face value without cross referencing.
Then why do you insist on indulging in such practices?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1478128 wrote: Round and round and round she goes,
Where she'll stop, nobody knows,
That is usually the result when you are arguing with someone who denies the facts.
Where she'll stop, nobody knows,
That is usually the result when you are arguing with someone who denies the facts.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1478175 wrote: That is usually the result when you are arguing with someone who denies the facts.
Well, you got THAT right.
Well, you got THAT right.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1478173 wrote: Originally Posted by Pahu:
The fact remains that Hawking confirmed what Brown said; that since the universe had a beginning there must have been a Creator.
Putting words in his mouth to justify your erroneous conclusions? The fact is Hawking said: "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.†That's what he actually said and it is true. What follows is evidence free speculation. But of course you are unwilling to accept facts in favor of your evidence free erroneous pre-conceptions.
Now who's putting words in peoples mouths? In my previous quote I said "I believe in God". Are you going to use that quote to prove that fact by ignoring the rest of the quote in the same way that Brown likes to do. Hawking was NOT supporting what Brown was saying. He put forward the sort of premise that Brown takes & followed it through to the logical conclusion. As the facts were in conflict with the premise, the premise was disregarded as not being valid. Brown, however, takes the fact that Hawking quoted the premise as being evidence of the validity of his claim by conveniently ignoring the rest of the quote which went to contradict what he wanted it to say. These are the actions of the blatant lying fraudulant charlatan that he clearly is.
Throughout this thread myself & many others have provided a multitude of external, independant sources, including links to them to disprove Brown's claims. Even by providing the quote in its entireity is providing evidence of Brown's fakery. It at least proves that I have done some research. You have done none (or at least if you have you're keeping quiet about it because the only outcome you've been able to find disproves what he says). You are the one who has provided none - at best, just links to those from Brown's own Creationist organisation, which he set up - hardly independant or unbiased. All you have done is to perpetually paste the same old meaningless passages from his book.
The very title of this thread, "Science Disproves Evolution" makes a statement which is false. You have made absolutely no arguments to support it.
All you have done is to paste Brown's rubbish.
You don't seek to argue the case. You just paste.
When evidence is provided to contradict Brown's claims you just paste.
You don't think for yourself. You just paste.
You are asked to provide evidence to support the claims. You just paste.
Can you see a common theme emerging? I see now the origin of your nick - Pahu. Obviously an abbreviation for "Pasting Huey".
You clearly either don't have the intelligence to think for yourself, or you simply don't have the inclination. Someone tells you what you want to hear & you immediately believe it, regardless of its lack of credibility.
When Brown says that so-and-so said such-and-such a thing, you don't ask, "Really? Show me where".
Brown says there is evidence to support his claims. You don't ask simple questions like "What evidence? Where? What do others have to say of this evidence? Who found this evidence? Why does all the other evidence contradict your evidence? How come all the geologists worlwide, especially those who have plumbed the depths of the earth in their search for oil have never found any evidence of this Hydroplate Theory, which you claim to be 'fact?". No. You just say "Yes Master. Whatever you say, Master".
Although not specifically about Brown, Snowfire's video clearly demonstrates the nature of Brown & his like. They take a portion of information, then 'enhance' it & claim it to be 'fact', when 99% of it is made up of their own imaginations. They make claims of massive numbers of citations, without comparing them in real terms to others. The 'Video Evidence' section of the Scientists conspiring to conceal the Creationists 'Evidence' is extremely Brown-esque. He would be likely to take the script of that video & quote it as evidence of how scientists admit they are hiding evidence - although he would, of course, only provide the transcript, rather than the video itself.
Once again, the case has been proven. Brown is a Fake, a Charlatan & a Liar. More than likely only in it for profit - it's highly doubtful if he even believes in any of it, and his follower is an idiot. Guilty on all counts.
The fact remains that Hawking confirmed what Brown said; that since the universe had a beginning there must have been a Creator.
Putting words in his mouth to justify your erroneous conclusions? The fact is Hawking said: "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.†That's what he actually said and it is true. What follows is evidence free speculation. But of course you are unwilling to accept facts in favor of your evidence free erroneous pre-conceptions.
Now who's putting words in peoples mouths? In my previous quote I said "I believe in God". Are you going to use that quote to prove that fact by ignoring the rest of the quote in the same way that Brown likes to do. Hawking was NOT supporting what Brown was saying. He put forward the sort of premise that Brown takes & followed it through to the logical conclusion. As the facts were in conflict with the premise, the premise was disregarded as not being valid. Brown, however, takes the fact that Hawking quoted the premise as being evidence of the validity of his claim by conveniently ignoring the rest of the quote which went to contradict what he wanted it to say. These are the actions of the blatant lying fraudulant charlatan that he clearly is.
Throughout this thread myself & many others have provided a multitude of external, independant sources, including links to them to disprove Brown's claims. Even by providing the quote in its entireity is providing evidence of Brown's fakery. It at least proves that I have done some research. You have done none (or at least if you have you're keeping quiet about it because the only outcome you've been able to find disproves what he says). You are the one who has provided none - at best, just links to those from Brown's own Creationist organisation, which he set up - hardly independant or unbiased. All you have done is to perpetually paste the same old meaningless passages from his book.
The very title of this thread, "Science Disproves Evolution" makes a statement which is false. You have made absolutely no arguments to support it.
All you have done is to paste Brown's rubbish.
You don't seek to argue the case. You just paste.
When evidence is provided to contradict Brown's claims you just paste.
You don't think for yourself. You just paste.
You are asked to provide evidence to support the claims. You just paste.
Can you see a common theme emerging? I see now the origin of your nick - Pahu. Obviously an abbreviation for "Pasting Huey".
You clearly either don't have the intelligence to think for yourself, or you simply don't have the inclination. Someone tells you what you want to hear & you immediately believe it, regardless of its lack of credibility.
When Brown says that so-and-so said such-and-such a thing, you don't ask, "Really? Show me where".
Brown says there is evidence to support his claims. You don't ask simple questions like "What evidence? Where? What do others have to say of this evidence? Who found this evidence? Why does all the other evidence contradict your evidence? How come all the geologists worlwide, especially those who have plumbed the depths of the earth in their search for oil have never found any evidence of this Hydroplate Theory, which you claim to be 'fact?". No. You just say "Yes Master. Whatever you say, Master".
Although not specifically about Brown, Snowfire's video clearly demonstrates the nature of Brown & his like. They take a portion of information, then 'enhance' it & claim it to be 'fact', when 99% of it is made up of their own imaginations. They make claims of massive numbers of citations, without comparing them in real terms to others. The 'Video Evidence' section of the Scientists conspiring to conceal the Creationists 'Evidence' is extremely Brown-esque. He would be likely to take the script of that video & quote it as evidence of how scientists admit they are hiding evidence - although he would, of course, only provide the transcript, rather than the video itself.
Once again, the case has been proven. Brown is a Fake, a Charlatan & a Liar. More than likely only in it for profit - it's highly doubtful if he even believes in any of it, and his follower is an idiot. Guilty on all counts.
Science Disproves Evolution
Originally Posted by Pahu:
The fact remains that Hawking confirmed what Brown said; that since the universe had a beginning there must have been a Creator.
Putting words in his mouth to justify your erroneous conclusions? The fact is Hawking said: "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.†That's what he actually said and it is true. What follows is evidence free speculation. But of course you are unwilling to accept facts in favor of your evidence free erroneous pre-conceptions.
FourPart;1478193 wrote: Now who's putting words in peoples mouths? In my previous quote I said "I believe in God". Are you going to use that quote to prove that fact by ignoring the rest of the quote in the same way that Brown likes to do.
Brown has never misquoted anyone. The fact remains that Hawking said; "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.†That statement is true and confirms the conclusion Brown arrived at. The rest of Hawking's quote is evidence free speculation.
Hawking was NOT supporting what Brown was saying.
Yes he was.
He put forward the sort of premise that Brown takes & followed it through to the logical conclusion.
No he doesn't. After his true statement, "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator,†he descends into evidence free speculation.
As the facts were in conflict with the premise, the premise was disregarded as not being valid.
What facts? Hawking indulged in evidence free speculation. Show me one fact in the rest of his quote.
Brown, however, takes the fact that Hawking quoted the premise as being evidence of the validity of his claim by conveniently ignoring the rest of the quote which went to contradict what he wanted it to say. These are the actions of the blatant lying fraudulant charlatan that he clearly is.
Hawking saying, "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator,†is precisely the conclusion Brown came to. He ignored the rest of the quote because it was nothing more than evidence free speculation. The reason you continue to paint Brown as a blatant lying fraudulant charlatan is because you have no rational answer for his facts. Calling him names, ad homonym, does not change that fact.
Throughout this thread myself & many others have provided a multitude of external, independant sources, including links to them to disprove Brown's claims.
After examining those sources and links, I have found nothing but evidence free speculation.
Even by providing the quote in its entireity is providing evidence of Brown's fakery. It at least proves that I have done some research. You have done none (or at least if you have you're keeping quiet about it because the only outcome you've been able to find disproves what he says). You are the one who has provided none - at best, just links to those from Brown's own Creationist organisation, which he set up - hardly independant or unbiased. All you have done is to perpetually paste the same old meaningless passages from his book.
The information in his book is scientifically valid.
The very title of this thread, "Science Disproves Evolution" makes a statement which is false. You have made absolutely no arguments to support it.
I have made numerous arguments supporting that title, which are scientifically valid.
All you have done is to paste Brown's rubbish.
Obviously you are speaking from a position of ignorance.
You don't seek to argue the case. You just paste.
Yes, I continue to past irrefutable facts. I am here to educate, not argue.
When evidence is provided to contradict Brown's claims you just paste.
You don't think for yourself. You just paste.
You are asked to provide evidence to support the claims. You just paste.
So far no evidence has been provided contradicting Brown's claims.
The reason I paste Brown's information is because I think for myself instead of trying to protect erroneous pre-conceived evidence free notions.
What I paste does provide evidence supporting the claims.
You clearly either don't have the intelligence to think for yourself, or you simply don't have the inclination. Someone tells you what you want to hear & you immediately believe it, regardless of its lack of credibility.
When your evolution/atheist masters say that so-and-so said such-and-such a thing, you don't ask, "Really? Show me where".
Your evolutionist/atheist masters say there is evidence to support our claims. You don't ask simple questions like "What evidence? Where? What do others have to say of this evidence? Who found this evidence? Why does all the other evidence contradict your evidence? No. You just say "Yes Master. Whatever you say, Master".
How come all the geologists worlwide, especially those who have plumbed the depths of the earth in their search for oil have never found any evidence of this Hydroplate Theory, which you claim to be 'fact?".
Plenty of evidence has been found. Here is an excerpt from Brown:
"For the past 30 years, some at AiG, ICR, and a few people close to those organizations have criticized the hydroplate theory by saying that it has not been “peer reviewed.†Actually, I would like it to be peer reviewed, provided:
a. The reviewers claim to be neutral, are named, and have read the latest version of the hydroplate theory.
b. I am allowed equal space to respond to the reviewer.
c. Our opposing comments are available to the public.
So far, no one has accepted.
As for peer review, a quick glance at the endnotes in this book will show that my work draws from about a thousand peer-reviewed papers in the most scholarly scientific journals. Those papers usually document anomalies that scientists are unable to fit into evolutionary scenarios—but that are explained by the hydroplate theory and the flood."
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Misleading Statements
You can learn more about the hydroplate theory here:
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: Key Assumptions
Once again, the case has been proven. Brown is a Fake, a Charlatan & a Liar. More than likely only in it for profit - it's highly doubtful if he even believes in any of it, and his follower is an idiot. Guilty on all counts.
Only in your dreams. Speaking of profit; Brown's book is offered freely on the internet. How does he make a profit that way?
The fact remains that Hawking confirmed what Brown said; that since the universe had a beginning there must have been a Creator.
Putting words in his mouth to justify your erroneous conclusions? The fact is Hawking said: "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.†That's what he actually said and it is true. What follows is evidence free speculation. But of course you are unwilling to accept facts in favor of your evidence free erroneous pre-conceptions.
FourPart;1478193 wrote: Now who's putting words in peoples mouths? In my previous quote I said "I believe in God". Are you going to use that quote to prove that fact by ignoring the rest of the quote in the same way that Brown likes to do.
Brown has never misquoted anyone. The fact remains that Hawking said; "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.†That statement is true and confirms the conclusion Brown arrived at. The rest of Hawking's quote is evidence free speculation.
Hawking was NOT supporting what Brown was saying.
Yes he was.
He put forward the sort of premise that Brown takes & followed it through to the logical conclusion.
No he doesn't. After his true statement, "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator,†he descends into evidence free speculation.
As the facts were in conflict with the premise, the premise was disregarded as not being valid.
What facts? Hawking indulged in evidence free speculation. Show me one fact in the rest of his quote.
Brown, however, takes the fact that Hawking quoted the premise as being evidence of the validity of his claim by conveniently ignoring the rest of the quote which went to contradict what he wanted it to say. These are the actions of the blatant lying fraudulant charlatan that he clearly is.
Hawking saying, "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator,†is precisely the conclusion Brown came to. He ignored the rest of the quote because it was nothing more than evidence free speculation. The reason you continue to paint Brown as a blatant lying fraudulant charlatan is because you have no rational answer for his facts. Calling him names, ad homonym, does not change that fact.
Throughout this thread myself & many others have provided a multitude of external, independant sources, including links to them to disprove Brown's claims.
After examining those sources and links, I have found nothing but evidence free speculation.
Even by providing the quote in its entireity is providing evidence of Brown's fakery. It at least proves that I have done some research. You have done none (or at least if you have you're keeping quiet about it because the only outcome you've been able to find disproves what he says). You are the one who has provided none - at best, just links to those from Brown's own Creationist organisation, which he set up - hardly independant or unbiased. All you have done is to perpetually paste the same old meaningless passages from his book.
The information in his book is scientifically valid.
The very title of this thread, "Science Disproves Evolution" makes a statement which is false. You have made absolutely no arguments to support it.
I have made numerous arguments supporting that title, which are scientifically valid.
All you have done is to paste Brown's rubbish.
Obviously you are speaking from a position of ignorance.
You don't seek to argue the case. You just paste.
Yes, I continue to past irrefutable facts. I am here to educate, not argue.
When evidence is provided to contradict Brown's claims you just paste.
You don't think for yourself. You just paste.
You are asked to provide evidence to support the claims. You just paste.
So far no evidence has been provided contradicting Brown's claims.
The reason I paste Brown's information is because I think for myself instead of trying to protect erroneous pre-conceived evidence free notions.
What I paste does provide evidence supporting the claims.
You clearly either don't have the intelligence to think for yourself, or you simply don't have the inclination. Someone tells you what you want to hear & you immediately believe it, regardless of its lack of credibility.
When your evolution/atheist masters say that so-and-so said such-and-such a thing, you don't ask, "Really? Show me where".
Your evolutionist/atheist masters say there is evidence to support our claims. You don't ask simple questions like "What evidence? Where? What do others have to say of this evidence? Who found this evidence? Why does all the other evidence contradict your evidence? No. You just say "Yes Master. Whatever you say, Master".
How come all the geologists worlwide, especially those who have plumbed the depths of the earth in their search for oil have never found any evidence of this Hydroplate Theory, which you claim to be 'fact?".
Plenty of evidence has been found. Here is an excerpt from Brown:
"For the past 30 years, some at AiG, ICR, and a few people close to those organizations have criticized the hydroplate theory by saying that it has not been “peer reviewed.†Actually, I would like it to be peer reviewed, provided:
a. The reviewers claim to be neutral, are named, and have read the latest version of the hydroplate theory.
b. I am allowed equal space to respond to the reviewer.
c. Our opposing comments are available to the public.
So far, no one has accepted.
As for peer review, a quick glance at the endnotes in this book will show that my work draws from about a thousand peer-reviewed papers in the most scholarly scientific journals. Those papers usually document anomalies that scientists are unable to fit into evolutionary scenarios—but that are explained by the hydroplate theory and the flood."
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Misleading Statements
You can learn more about the hydroplate theory here:
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: Key Assumptions
Once again, the case has been proven. Brown is a Fake, a Charlatan & a Liar. More than likely only in it for profit - it's highly doubtful if he even believes in any of it, and his follower is an idiot. Guilty on all counts.
Only in your dreams. Speaking of profit; Brown's book is offered freely on the internet. How does he make a profit that way?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu, have you any idea as to what "context" means ? From the evidence of your postings and responses, you havent a clue.
Hawking indulged in evidence free speculation
The foremost leading scientist in the world, bar none.
Ive posted evidence in the form of a video as to the veracity of creationist "scientists"
Only in your dreams. Speaking of profit; Brown's book is offered freely on the internet. How does he make a profit that way?
Who's going to put their hand in their pocket for a sham book like that.
You are getting more and more foolish as you post Pahu
Hawking indulged in evidence free speculation
The foremost leading scientist in the world, bar none.
Ive posted evidence in the form of a video as to the veracity of creationist "scientists"
Only in your dreams. Speaking of profit; Brown's book is offered freely on the internet. How does he make a profit that way?
Who's going to put their hand in their pocket for a sham book like that.
You are getting more and more foolish as you post Pahu
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
You can't have it both ways. You claim that I don't ask questions about the evidence. I'm the one that has researched the issue & have provided links to the results. One of the most recent being the Peer Review by a Creationist Website, which I was reading to get some idea of a cogniscent arguments, rather than perpetual pasting. Imagine how surprised I was to see that they were denouncing him as a fraud.
Brown claims that his works are not accepted due to the lack of peer review.
"For the past 30 years, some at AiG, ICR, and a few people close to those organizations have criticized the hydroplate theory by saying that it has not been “peer reviewed.†Actually, I would like it to be peer reviewed, provided:
a. The reviewers claim to be neutral, are named, and have read the latest version of the hydroplate theory.
Perhaps not quite neutral, as it's from a Creationist organisation, but that should act in his favour.
The reviewer was named (Michael J. Oard), and works from the latest (8th) edition.
b. I am allowed equal space to respond to the reviewer.
Not only allowed, but repeatedly requested.
We would love to have seen Dr Brown accede to our repeated invitations to submit his model or aspects of it to the Journal in order to have it pass through the refining fire of robust criticism in the normal scientific fashion.
c. Our opposing comments are available to the public.
A forum is open to the public.
Even to be part of a forum on the subject, as happened with CPT (See Dr Jonathan Sarfati’s paper Flood models and biblical realism.)
So far, no one has accepted.
Obviously another outright lie. Although, no doubt, you will class this as an evidence free claim, despite having provided links to substantiate it.
More of your wanting to have things both ways...
Bear in mind it was me who found the REAL Hawking quote in its REAL context (more evidence of my asking questions, which you claim I don't do). You're basically stating that Hawking, being the Intellectual Genius makes a statement supporting Brown's claims, but then you deny the rest of the quote as being ignorant evidence free speculation when it goes on to refute the initial premise as being flawed. So which are you saying? That the world's foremost Genius bases everything on evidence free speculation, except when a few words clipped from a larger quote & taken out of context make him a Creationist icon, despite everything else being evidence free speculation.
Would you like a few more straws to grasp at?
Brown claims that his works are not accepted due to the lack of peer review.
"For the past 30 years, some at AiG, ICR, and a few people close to those organizations have criticized the hydroplate theory by saying that it has not been “peer reviewed.†Actually, I would like it to be peer reviewed, provided:
a. The reviewers claim to be neutral, are named, and have read the latest version of the hydroplate theory.
Perhaps not quite neutral, as it's from a Creationist organisation, but that should act in his favour.
The reviewer was named (Michael J. Oard), and works from the latest (8th) edition.
b. I am allowed equal space to respond to the reviewer.
Not only allowed, but repeatedly requested.
We would love to have seen Dr Brown accede to our repeated invitations to submit his model or aspects of it to the Journal in order to have it pass through the refining fire of robust criticism in the normal scientific fashion.
c. Our opposing comments are available to the public.
A forum is open to the public.
Even to be part of a forum on the subject, as happened with CPT (See Dr Jonathan Sarfati’s paper Flood models and biblical realism.)
So far, no one has accepted.
Obviously another outright lie. Although, no doubt, you will class this as an evidence free claim, despite having provided links to substantiate it.
More of your wanting to have things both ways...
Bear in mind it was me who found the REAL Hawking quote in its REAL context (more evidence of my asking questions, which you claim I don't do). You're basically stating that Hawking, being the Intellectual Genius makes a statement supporting Brown's claims, but then you deny the rest of the quote as being ignorant evidence free speculation when it goes on to refute the initial premise as being flawed. So which are you saying? That the world's foremost Genius bases everything on evidence free speculation, except when a few words clipped from a larger quote & taken out of context make him a Creationist icon, despite everything else being evidence free speculation.
Would you like a few more straws to grasp at?
Science Disproves Evolution
Evolving Planets? 1
Contrary to popular opinion, planets should not form from just the mutual gravitational attraction of particles orbiting a star, such as our Sun. Orbiting particles should spiral into its star or be scattered or expelled from their orbit—not merge (accrete) to become a planet (a). Experiments have shown that colliding particles, instead of sticking together, almost always fragment.(b). (Similar difficulties exist in trying to form a moon from particles orbiting a planet.)
Despite these problems, let us assume that pebble-size to moon-size particles somehow evolved. “Growing a planet†by many small collisions will produce an almost nonspinning planet, because spins imparted by impacts will be largely self-canceling (c).
a. “Planet formation is a paradox: according to standard theory, dust grains orbiting newborn stars should spiral into those stars rather than accrete to form planets.†Philip Campbell, “Trap Holds Protoplanet Dust,†Nature, Vol.*498, 13 June 2013, p.*141.
Very special conditions are required to capture and then merge orbiting bodies. They are discussed more fully starting on page 292.
b. John F. Kerridge and James F. Vedder, “An Experimental Approach to Circumsolar Accretion,†Symposium on the Origin of the Solar System (Paris, France: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1972), pp.*282–283.
“It turns out to be surprisingly difficult for planetesimals to accrete mass during even the most gentle collisions.†Erik Asphaug, “The Small Planets,†Scientific American, Vol.*282, May 2000, p.*54.
c. Tim Folger, “This Battered Earth,†Discover, January 1994, p.*33.
“‘We came to the conclusion,’ says Lissauer, ‘that if you accrete planets from a uniform disk of planetesimals, prograde rotation just can’t be explained,’ The simulated bombardment leaves a growing planet spinning once a week at most, not once a day.†*Richard A. Kerr, “Theoreticians Are Putting a New Spin on the Planets,†Science, Vol.*258, 23*October 1992, p.*548.
Luke Dones and Scott Tremaine, “Why Does the Earth Spin Forward?†Science, Vol.*259, 15*January 1993, pp.*350–354.
Some believe that the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) gained their spins through a few very large and improbable impacts. However, this appeal to large or improbable impacts will not work for the giant outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune), which have the most spin energy. Such impacts on these gaseous planets would be even more improbable, because they move more slowly and are so far from the center of the solar system. Besides, impacts from large rocks would not account for the composition of the giant planets—basically hydrogen and helium.
[From “In the Beginning†by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Yayy - he's obviously conceded defeat. He's back to the pasting, in the vain hope that the more he does so, the less bollocks it'll be.
Brown's theories are simple mathematics. They make ZERO sense.
It doesn't matter whether you paste it 100 times or 1000 times.
100 x Zero = Zero
1000 x Zero = Zero
Every one of your pastes has been shown to be codswallop. Every claim of his has been proven to be false, and outright lies. Every quote has been shown to be out of context. By continuing to paste it you are just advertising the fact that Brown is a charlatan.
Brown's theories are simple mathematics. They make ZERO sense.
It doesn't matter whether you paste it 100 times or 1000 times.
100 x Zero = Zero
1000 x Zero = Zero
Every one of your pastes has been shown to be codswallop. Every claim of his has been proven to be false, and outright lies. Every quote has been shown to be out of context. By continuing to paste it you are just advertising the fact that Brown is a charlatan.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1478331 wrote: Yayy - he's obviously conceded defeat. He's back to the pasting, in the vain hope that the more he does so, the less bollocks it'll be.
Brown's theories are simple mathematics. They make ZERO sense.
It doesn't matter whether you paste it 100 times or 1000 times.
100 x Zero = Zero
1000 x Zero = Zero
Every one of your pastes has been shown to be codswallop. Every claim of his has been proven to be false, and outright lies. Every quote has been shown to be out of context. By continuing to paste it you are just advertising the fact that Brown is a charlatan.
Your math is correct but it does not apply to Brown. It is simply a smoke screen designed to make you look intelligent. Can you provide the context of any quote that changes the meaning of the quote? The fact is that Brown's information has never been refuted, nor have the hundreds of scientists who confirm his conclusions, such as:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Brown's theories are simple mathematics. They make ZERO sense.
It doesn't matter whether you paste it 100 times or 1000 times.
100 x Zero = Zero
1000 x Zero = Zero
Every one of your pastes has been shown to be codswallop. Every claim of his has been proven to be false, and outright lies. Every quote has been shown to be out of context. By continuing to paste it you are just advertising the fact that Brown is a charlatan.
Your math is correct but it does not apply to Brown. It is simply a smoke screen designed to make you look intelligent. Can you provide the context of any quote that changes the meaning of the quote? The fact is that Brown's information has never been refuted, nor have the hundreds of scientists who confirm his conclusions, such as:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
The fact is that Brown's information has never been refuted, nor have the hundreds of scientists who confirm his conclusions, such as:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
Then show the evidence IN CONTEXT !!
You cant because you dont understand what context means...let me help.
context
[kon-tekst]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect:
You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
I'll say it again for those who hard of understanding. Prof. Stephen W. Hawking does not confirm what Brown has stated. Nor do I suspect do any of the others, when statements are taken in full context ( CONTEXT, remember and understand).
I have shown the validity of the creationist scientists. They are invalid by never having any of their speculations published in any major peer reviewed publication, because it is bogus.
Even other creationists think Brown's theory are invalid and bogus
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
Then show the evidence IN CONTEXT !!
You cant because you dont understand what context means...let me help.
context
[kon-tekst]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect:
You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
I'll say it again for those who hard of understanding. Prof. Stephen W. Hawking does not confirm what Brown has stated. Nor do I suspect do any of the others, when statements are taken in full context ( CONTEXT, remember and understand).
I have shown the validity of the creationist scientists. They are invalid by never having any of their speculations published in any major peer reviewed publication, because it is bogus.
Even other creationists think Brown's theory are invalid and bogus
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1478370 wrote: Then show the evidence IN CONTEXT !!
Show us a context that changes the meaning of the quote?
I'll say it again for those who hard of understanding. Prof. Stephen W. Hawking does not confirm what Brown has stated. Nor do I suspect do any of the others, when statements are taken in full context ( CONTEXT, remember and understand).
Havn't we been here before? At any rate, I'll repeat:
A Beginning
Heat always flows from a hot body to a cold body. If the universe were infinitely old—has always been here—everything would have the same temperature. Because temperatures vary, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning. (A beginning suggests a Creator.)a
a. “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.
I have shown the validity of the creationist scientists. They are invalid by never having any of their speculations published in any major peer reviewed publication, because it is bogus.
Even other creationists think Brown's theory are invalid and bogus
You are ignoring reality. Perhaps you just can't see what contradicts your evidence free erroneous pre-conceptions. The scientists who confirm Brown's conclusions have been published in major peer reviewed publications, such as:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Show us a context that changes the meaning of the quote?
I'll say it again for those who hard of understanding. Prof. Stephen W. Hawking does not confirm what Brown has stated. Nor do I suspect do any of the others, when statements are taken in full context ( CONTEXT, remember and understand).
Havn't we been here before? At any rate, I'll repeat:
A Beginning
Heat always flows from a hot body to a cold body. If the universe were infinitely old—has always been here—everything would have the same temperature. Because temperatures vary, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning. (A beginning suggests a Creator.)a
a. “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.
I have shown the validity of the creationist scientists. They are invalid by never having any of their speculations published in any major peer reviewed publication, because it is bogus.
Even other creationists think Brown's theory are invalid and bogus
You are ignoring reality. Perhaps you just can't see what contradicts your evidence free erroneous pre-conceptions. The scientists who confirm Brown's conclusions have been published in major peer reviewed publications, such as:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Show us a context that changes the meaning of the quote?
Fourpart did exactly that with Hawkings out of context quote. (post 1720) You have presumably chosen to ignore it or clearly didnt understand it....Which is it ?
Fourpart did exactly that with Hawkings out of context quote. (post 1720) You have presumably chosen to ignore it or clearly didnt understand it....Which is it ?
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1478373 wrote: Fourpart did exactly that with Hawkings out of context quote. (post 1720) You have presumably chosen to ignore it or clearly didnt understand it....Which is it ?
The quote was exactly what Hawking said in context.
The quote was exactly what Hawking said in context.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1478375 wrote: The quote was exactly what Hawking said in context.
The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. 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? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]
Lets try again shall we. The highlighted text is what was left out of Browns quote. It changes the whole meaning of the text.
So, again, because Browns quote is out of CONTEXT, Hawking does NOT confirm what Brown states. It's not difficult unless you are being deliberately obtuse.
There are none so blind as those that do not want to see
The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. 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? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]
Lets try again shall we. The highlighted text is what was left out of Browns quote. It changes the whole meaning of the text.
So, again, because Browns quote is out of CONTEXT, Hawking does NOT confirm what Brown states. It's not difficult unless you are being deliberately obtuse.
There are none so blind as those that do not want to see
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Originally Posted by Pahu:
The quote was exactly what Hawking said in context.
Quote from Snowfire:
The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. 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? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]
Snowfire;1478376 wrote: Lets try again shall we. The highlighted text is what was left out of Browns quote. It changes the whole meaning of the text.
So, again, because Browns quote is out of CONTEXT, Hawking does NOT confirm what Brown states. It's not difficult unless you are being deliberately obtuse.
There are none so blind as those that do not want to see
You fail to notice that the quote from Hawking agrees with what Brown said, that; "Heat always flows from a hot body to a cold body. If the universe were infinitely old—has always been here—everything would have the same temperature. Because temperatures vary, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning. (A beginning suggests a Creator.)"
Hawking is saying that IF the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. He is confirming what Brown said.
The highlighted portions of Hawking's statement are evidence free speculation. One example is when he says; "it would have neither beginning nor end." That statement is not only evidence free, it also conflicts with the 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 free to believe otherwise, but those are the facts.
There are none so blind as those that do not want to see!
The quote was exactly what Hawking said in context.
Quote from Snowfire:
The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. 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? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]
Snowfire;1478376 wrote: Lets try again shall we. The highlighted text is what was left out of Browns quote. It changes the whole meaning of the text.
So, again, because Browns quote is out of CONTEXT, Hawking does NOT confirm what Brown states. It's not difficult unless you are being deliberately obtuse.
There are none so blind as those that do not want to see
You fail to notice that the quote from Hawking agrees with what Brown said, that; "Heat always flows from a hot body to a cold body. If the universe were infinitely old—has always been here—everything would have the same temperature. Because temperatures vary, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning. (A beginning suggests a Creator.)"
Hawking is saying that IF the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. He is confirming what Brown said.
The highlighted portions of Hawking's statement are evidence free speculation. One example is when he says; "it would have neither beginning nor end." That statement is not only evidence free, it also conflicts with the 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 free to believe otherwise, but those are the facts.
There are none so blind as those that do not want to see!
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1478371 wrote: Show us a context that changes the meaning of the quote?
I have done, quite adequately, and everyone here recognises that fact. You are simply ignoring it because it contradicts what you want it to say, and contradicts what Brown says it means, which really comes down to the same thing. I very much doubt you even had any idea what the rest of the dquote was before I found it for you & simply took it at face value - blindly accepting the words of a Snake Oil Merchant.
Havn't we been here before? At any rate, I'll repeat:
On this much we are agreed. And repeat, and repeat....
Heat always flows from a hot body to a cold body. If the universe were infinitely old—has always been here—everything would have the same temperature. Because temperatures vary, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning. (A beginning suggests a Creator.)
The key word here is IF. Also, the same argument you are using regarding heat alway moving from a warm surface to a cold one may be so in perfect laboratory conditions. In real terms, though, things aren't as straightforward. If they were the temperature of the earth would be constant. We wouldn't have any weather. No winds. No submarine currents. According to your logic everything would have evened themselves out long ago.
“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)
This is the key point that on its own blatantly & deliberately changes the entire context of the quote. It is presented as if that is the be all & end all of the quote. It is far from it. In it's FULL context it says that if a certain set of circumstances were true, then something MIGHT be seen by some to mean something, but as it DOESN'T, then the notion is false.
You are ignoring reality. Perhaps you just can't see what contradicts your evidence free erroneous pre-conceptions. The scientists who confirm Brown's conclusions have been published in major peer reviewed publications, such as:
You are the one who is ignoring reality. I have provided the evidence of the reality in the remainder of the quote. That is reality. The quote it there. Those are the full words, conveniently dismissed. THAT is ignoring reality.
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
The same old list of Who's Who & Random Publications. After the farce with taking Hawking out of context, how are we to believe anything better from anyone else? I've asked you time & time again to provide further details of where any one of these names supposedly said anything to support Brown. All you came up with was the quote from Hawking which has already shown up what a fraud Brown is. The whole thing has been ripped to shreds.
Now, I repeat the challenge. Show me the REAL quotes by any of these scientists. Even a partial quote, as with Hawking. It shouldn't be difficult to find the rest of the REAL quote, if they even exist at all.
Why have you never answered this challenge. I'm sure that if you could back up these claims with any actual evidence, other than pasting Brown's unfounded claims you would have by now. The reason why you haven't is patently obvious. You don't know. You have no more evidence than Brown's word of some meaningless, unsubstantiated list which you insist on constantly pasting for some stupid reason in the vain hope that it might suddenly convince us that everything is the way you want it to be.
Not only in this forum, but in others I have been proved wrong in various discussions, but when proved wrong I have always put my hands up & admitted it. Even if you were to prove this case I would do the same. But you can't. All you can do is continue to paste, like a mindless automaton.
I have done, quite adequately, and everyone here recognises that fact. You are simply ignoring it because it contradicts what you want it to say, and contradicts what Brown says it means, which really comes down to the same thing. I very much doubt you even had any idea what the rest of the dquote was before I found it for you & simply took it at face value - blindly accepting the words of a Snake Oil Merchant.
Havn't we been here before? At any rate, I'll repeat:
On this much we are agreed. And repeat, and repeat....
Heat always flows from a hot body to a cold body. If the universe were infinitely old—has always been here—everything would have the same temperature. Because temperatures vary, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning. (A beginning suggests a Creator.)
The key word here is IF. Also, the same argument you are using regarding heat alway moving from a warm surface to a cold one may be so in perfect laboratory conditions. In real terms, though, things aren't as straightforward. If they were the temperature of the earth would be constant. We wouldn't have any weather. No winds. No submarine currents. According to your logic everything would have evened themselves out long ago.
“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)
This is the key point that on its own blatantly & deliberately changes the entire context of the quote. It is presented as if that is the be all & end all of the quote. It is far from it. In it's FULL context it says that if a certain set of circumstances were true, then something MIGHT be seen by some to mean something, but as it DOESN'T, then the notion is false.
You are ignoring reality. Perhaps you just can't see what contradicts your evidence free erroneous pre-conceptions. The scientists who confirm Brown's conclusions have been published in major peer reviewed publications, such as:
You are the one who is ignoring reality. I have provided the evidence of the reality in the remainder of the quote. That is reality. The quote it there. Those are the full words, conveniently dismissed. THAT is ignoring reality.
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
The same old list of Who's Who & Random Publications. After the farce with taking Hawking out of context, how are we to believe anything better from anyone else? I've asked you time & time again to provide further details of where any one of these names supposedly said anything to support Brown. All you came up with was the quote from Hawking which has already shown up what a fraud Brown is. The whole thing has been ripped to shreds.
Now, I repeat the challenge. Show me the REAL quotes by any of these scientists. Even a partial quote, as with Hawking. It shouldn't be difficult to find the rest of the REAL quote, if they even exist at all.
Why have you never answered this challenge. I'm sure that if you could back up these claims with any actual evidence, other than pasting Brown's unfounded claims you would have by now. The reason why you haven't is patently obvious. You don't know. You have no more evidence than Brown's word of some meaningless, unsubstantiated list which you insist on constantly pasting for some stupid reason in the vain hope that it might suddenly convince us that everything is the way you want it to be.
Not only in this forum, but in others I have been proved wrong in various discussions, but when proved wrong I have always put my hands up & admitted it. Even if you were to prove this case I would do the same. But you can't. All you can do is continue to paste, like a mindless automaton.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1478378 wrote:
The same old list of Who's Who & Random Publications. After the farce with taking Hawking out of context, how are we to believe anything better from anyone else? I've asked you time & time again to provide further details of where any one of these names supposedly said anything to support Brown. All you came up with was the quote from Hawking which has already shown up what a fraud Brown is. The whole thing has been ripped to shreds.
Now, I repeat the challenge. Show me the REAL quotes by any of these scientists. Even a partial quote, as with Hawking. It shouldn't be difficult to find the rest of the REAL quote, if they even exist at all.
Why have you never answered this challenge. I'm sure that if you could back up these claims with any actual evidence, other than pasting Brown's unfounded claims you would have by now. The reason why you haven't is patently obvious. You don't know. You have no more evidence than Brown's word of some meaningless, unsubstantiated list which you insist on constantly pasting for some stupid reason in the vain hope that it might suddenly convince us that everything is the way you want it to be.
Not only in this forum, but in others I have been proved wrong in various discussions, but when proved wrong I have always put my hands up & admitted it. Even if you were to prove this case I would do the same. But you can't. All you can do is continue to paste, like a mindless automaton.
You continue to remain in the darkness of the denial of reality. I have explained the Hawking/Brown quotes several times and you choose to ignore them. I have also answered your challenge several time with the same result. I will try once more:
Go here: The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory. On the left you will find an index. In the index you can go to any name of the list where you will find the quote along with the article from which it came. If that is too difficult for you, forget it!
The same old list of Who's Who & Random Publications. After the farce with taking Hawking out of context, how are we to believe anything better from anyone else? I've asked you time & time again to provide further details of where any one of these names supposedly said anything to support Brown. All you came up with was the quote from Hawking which has already shown up what a fraud Brown is. The whole thing has been ripped to shreds.
Now, I repeat the challenge. Show me the REAL quotes by any of these scientists. Even a partial quote, as with Hawking. It shouldn't be difficult to find the rest of the REAL quote, if they even exist at all.
Why have you never answered this challenge. I'm sure that if you could back up these claims with any actual evidence, other than pasting Brown's unfounded claims you would have by now. The reason why you haven't is patently obvious. You don't know. You have no more evidence than Brown's word of some meaningless, unsubstantiated list which you insist on constantly pasting for some stupid reason in the vain hope that it might suddenly convince us that everything is the way you want it to be.
Not only in this forum, but in others I have been proved wrong in various discussions, but when proved wrong I have always put my hands up & admitted it. Even if you were to prove this case I would do the same. But you can't. All you can do is continue to paste, like a mindless automaton.
You continue to remain in the darkness of the denial of reality. I have explained the Hawking/Brown quotes several times and you choose to ignore them. I have also answered your challenge several time with the same result. I will try once more:
Go here: The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory. On the left you will find an index. In the index you can go to any name of the list where you will find the quote along with the article from which it came. If that is too difficult for you, forget it!
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
All I see there is an alphabetical list of everything in Brown's book. Nothing more. It only refers to the (partial) quotes used within the book. Nothing more. I am still waiting for you to show me the EXTERNAL sources. Self citation is NO citation.
Here's a REAL Peer Review.
FourPart's remarkable thesis on the existence of Fluffy Pink Flying Elephants is ground breaking. It totally debunks any possibility of the existence of a creator.
(Source: Stephen Hawking - New Scientist)
Here's a REAL Peer Review.
FourPart's remarkable thesis on the existence of Fluffy Pink Flying Elephants is ground breaking. It totally debunks any possibility of the existence of a creator.
(Source: Stephen Hawking - New Scientist)
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1478377 wrote: Originally Posted by Pahu:
The quote was exactly what Hawking said in context.
Well, not only do you want to invent your own science but you want to reinvent the English language. Missing out relevant sentences within a passage is deliberately hiding the true meaning
I even posted a Dictionary definition of what context means but it's clear our version of the meaning doesnt suit you or Mr Brown. You are showing all the signs of willful ignorance, the sort employed by charlatans who have their backs against the wall. You have no argument.
Even with the basic knowledge I have, given my limited education, I can see through you. You may convince the weak minded but most of us have the will and wherefore to counter your false claims. Most of us recognise the difference between real science and a manufactured sham
The quote was exactly what Hawking said in context.
Well, not only do you want to invent your own science but you want to reinvent the English language. Missing out relevant sentences within a passage is deliberately hiding the true meaning
I even posted a Dictionary definition of what context means but it's clear our version of the meaning doesnt suit you or Mr Brown. You are showing all the signs of willful ignorance, the sort employed by charlatans who have their backs against the wall. You have no argument.
Even with the basic knowledge I have, given my limited education, I can see through you. You may convince the weak minded but most of us have the will and wherefore to counter your false claims. Most of us recognise the difference between real science and a manufactured sham
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1478439 wrote: Well, not only do you want to invent your own science but you want to reinvent the English language. Missing out relevant sentences within a passage is deliberately hiding the true meaning
I even posted a Dictionary definition of what context means but it's clear our version of the meaning doesnt suit you or Mr Brown. You are showing all the signs of willful ignorance, the sort employed by charlatans who have their backs against the wall. You have no argument.
Even with the basic knowledge I have, given my limited education, I can see through you. You may convince the weak minded but most of us have the will and wherefore to counter your false claims. Most of us recognise the difference between real science and a manufactured sham
Brace yourself for his next response. Which is it likely to be, another chapter or two from Brown's Monster Joke Book, or the listing from Who's Who?
I even posted a Dictionary definition of what context means but it's clear our version of the meaning doesnt suit you or Mr Brown. You are showing all the signs of willful ignorance, the sort employed by charlatans who have their backs against the wall. You have no argument.
Even with the basic knowledge I have, given my limited education, I can see through you. You may convince the weak minded but most of us have the will and wherefore to counter your false claims. Most of us recognise the difference between real science and a manufactured sham
Brace yourself for his next response. Which is it likely to be, another chapter or two from Brown's Monster Joke Book, or the listing from Who's Who?
Science Disproves Evolution
Evolving Planets? 2
The growth of a large, gaseous planet (such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune) far from the central star is especially difficult for evolutionists to explain for several reasons (d):
a. Gases dissipate rapidly in the vacuum of outer space, especially the lightest two gases—hydrogen and helium, which comprise most of the giant planets.
b. Because gas molecules orbiting a star do not gravitationally pull in (or merge with) other gas molecules in the orbiting ring, a rocky planet, about ten or more times larger than Earth, must first form to attract all the gas gravitationally. This must happen very quickly, before the gas dissipates (e). (Jupiter’s hydrogen and helium is 300 times more massive than the entire Earth.)
c. Stars like our Sun—even those which evolutionists say are young—do not have enough orbiting hydrogen or helium to form one Jupiter (f).
Computer simulations show that Uranus and Neptune could not evolve anywhere near their present locations (g). Planets that are found outside our solar system also contradict the theories for how planets supposedly evolve. [See “Have Planets Been Discovered Outside the Solar System?†on page*449.]
Based on demonstrable science, gaseous planets and the rest of the solar system did not evolve.
d. “Building Jupiter has long been a problem to theorists.†George W. Wetherill, “How Special Is Jupiter?†Nature, Vol.373, 9February 1995, p.470.
“Talk about a major embarrassment for planetary scientists. There, blazing away in the late evening sky, are Jupiter and Saturn—the gas giants that account for 93% of the solar system’s planetary mass—and no one has a satisfying explanation of how they were made.†Richard A. Kerr, “A Quickie Birth for Jupiters and Saturns,†Science, Vol.298, 29November 2002, p.1698.
e. This idea has a further difficulty. If, as the solar system began to form, a large, rocky planet quickly formed near Jupiter’s orbit, why didn’t a rocky planet form in the adjacent asteroid belt where we see more than 200,000 rocky bodies (asteroids) today?
f. B. Zuckerman et al., “Inhibition of Giant-Planet Formation by Rapid Gas Depletion around Young Stars,†Nature, Vol.373, 9February 1995, pp.494–496.
g. “In the best simulations of the process [of evolving Uranus and Neptune], cores for Uranus and Neptune fail to form at their present positions in even 4.5 billion years, [what evolutionists believe is] the lifetime of the solar system. ‘Things just grow too slowly’ in the outermost solar system, says Weidenschilling. ‘We’ve tried to form Uranus and Neptune at their present locations and failed miserably.’†Stuart Weidenschilling, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Shaking Up a Nursery of Giant Planets,†Science, Vol.286, 10 December 1999, p.2054.
Renu Malhotra, “Chaotic Planet Formation,†Nature, Vol.402, 9December 1999, pp.599–600.
[From “In the Beginning†by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
I asked this last time you posted that - What has planetary development got to do with evolution?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
I was right. When he has no answer to an argument & is beaten he turns back to his pasting to sulk.
Who's a clever boy then?
Who's a clever boy then?
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1478740 wrote: I asked this last time you posted that - What has planetary development got to do with evolution?
He seems to think that Evolution of the Universe is the same thing as Evolution of Life.
He doesn't believe in evolution, yet uses the term freely. If it doesn't exist, then there can be no word for it. However, the word was in existence LONG before Darwin ever hit upon the idea.
In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was Evolution.
He seems to think that Evolution of the Universe is the same thing as Evolution of Life.
He doesn't believe in evolution, yet uses the term freely. If it doesn't exist, then there can be no word for it. However, the word was in existence LONG before Darwin ever hit upon the idea.
In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was Evolution.
Science Disproves Evolution
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.
1828 Webster's Dictionary of the English Language
EVOLU'TION, noun [Latin evolutio.] The act of unfolding or unrolling.
1. A series of things unrolled or unfolded; as the evolution of ages.
2. In geometry, the unfolding or opening of a curve, and making it describe an evolvent. The equable evolution of the periphery of a circle, or other curve, is such a gradual approach of the
circumference to rectitude, as that its parts do all concur, and equally evolve or unbend; so that the same line becomes successively a less arc of a reciprocally greater circle, till at last they
change into a straight line.
3. In algebra, evolution is the extraction of roots from powers; the reverse of involution.
4. In military tactics, the doubling of ranks or files, wheeling, countermarching or other motion by which the disposition of troops is changed, in order to attack or defend with more advantage, or
to occupy a different post.
1913 Webster's Dictionary of the English Language
Evolution
Evolution (evolution)
n. (?)
Ev`o*lu"tion
[L. evolutio an unrolling: cf. F. évolution evolution. See Evolve.]
The act of unfolding or unrolling; hence, in the process of growth; development; as, the evolution of a flower from a bud, or an animal from the egg.
A series of things unrolled or unfolded.
"The whole evolution of ages." Dr. H. More.
The formation of an involute by unwrapping a thread from a curve as an evolute.
Hutton.
The extraction of roots] -- the reverse of involution.
A prescribed movement of a body of troops, or a vessel or fleet] any movement designed to effect a new arrangement or disposition; a maneuver.
Those evolutions are best which can be executed with the greatest celerity, compatible with regularity. Campbell.
A general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases
of growth or development.
(b)
That series of changes under natural law which involves continuous progress from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous in structure, and from the single and simple to the diverse and manifold in
quality or function. The pocess is by some limited to organic beings; by others it is applied to the inorganic and the psychical. It is also applied to explain the existence and growth of
institutions, manners, language, civilization, and every product of human activity. The agencies and laws of the process are variously explained by different philosophers.
The Free Dictionary by Farlex
ev·o·lu·tion (ĕv′ə-lo͞o′shən, ē′və-)
n.
1.
a. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
b. A result of this process; a development: Judo is an evolution of an earlier martial art.
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.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
3. Astronomy Change in the structure, chemical composition, or dynamical properties of a celestial object or system such as a planetary system, star, or galaxy. Evolution often changes the
observable or measurable characteristics of the object or system.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements: naval evolutions in preparation for battle.
5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.
Here are extractions from several dictionaries,of the word, 'evolution'
Please tell me which of these definitions 'science' disproves.
1828 Webster's Dictionary of the English Language
EVOLU'TION, noun [Latin evolutio.] The act of unfolding or unrolling.
1. A series of things unrolled or unfolded; as the evolution of ages.
2. In geometry, the unfolding or opening of a curve, and making it describe an evolvent. The equable evolution of the periphery of a circle, or other curve, is such a gradual approach of the
circumference to rectitude, as that its parts do all concur, and equally evolve or unbend; so that the same line becomes successively a less arc of a reciprocally greater circle, till at last they
change into a straight line.
3. In algebra, evolution is the extraction of roots from powers; the reverse of involution.
4. In military tactics, the doubling of ranks or files, wheeling, countermarching or other motion by which the disposition of troops is changed, in order to attack or defend with more advantage, or
to occupy a different post.
1913 Webster's Dictionary of the English Language
Evolution
Evolution (evolution)
n. (?)
Ev`o*lu"tion
[L. evolutio an unrolling: cf. F. évolution evolution. See Evolve.]
The act of unfolding or unrolling; hence, in the process of growth; development; as, the evolution of a flower from a bud, or an animal from the egg.
A series of things unrolled or unfolded.
"The whole evolution of ages." Dr. H. More.
The formation of an involute by unwrapping a thread from a curve as an evolute.
Hutton.
The extraction of roots] -- the reverse of involution.
A prescribed movement of a body of troops, or a vessel or fleet] any movement designed to effect a new arrangement or disposition; a maneuver.
Those evolutions are best which can be executed with the greatest celerity, compatible with regularity. Campbell.
A general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases
of growth or development.
(b)
That series of changes under natural law which involves continuous progress from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous in structure, and from the single and simple to the diverse and manifold in
quality or function. The pocess is by some limited to organic beings; by others it is applied to the inorganic and the psychical. It is also applied to explain the existence and growth of
institutions, manners, language, civilization, and every product of human activity. The agencies and laws of the process are variously explained by different philosophers.
The Free Dictionary by Farlex
ev·o·lu·tion (ĕv′ə-lo͞o′shən, ē′və-)
n.
1.
a. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
b. A result of this process; a development: Judo is an evolution of an earlier martial art.
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.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
3. Astronomy Change in the structure, chemical composition, or dynamical properties of a celestial object or system such as a planetary system, star, or galaxy. Evolution often changes the
observable or measurable characteristics of the object or system.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements: naval evolutions in preparation for battle.
5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence