G#Gill;1487740 wrote: Strange really. How come Pahu does such large posts ? Are they his own words ? If they are not, I am wondering about copyright. He doesn't seem to give any credit to anybody.
To be fair, he does always give accreditation - not that there's really any point. His one & only source is Walt Brown's one & only book, which has even been refuted by other Creation Scientists. He consistently pastes a list of noted names, coupled with a catalogue of publications, but has yet to provide any point of reference between the two, despite multiple challenges to do so. On the rare occasion when he has provided actual quotes (pasted from the book), with a simple bit of Google research it has been proven that the quotes have been creatively edited (I wonder if that is the real meaning of Creationist) so as to take the words out of context & to change their meaning, such as with that of Stephen Hawking - supposedly affirming the existence of a God & accrediting the creation of the Universe to him conveniently omitting such words as "What need for a God?", which totally reverses the intended meaning of the quote. The only other names he provides, once again with a little Google research show them to be in the employ of Walt Brown at his own Creationist Institute, or a few other selective Creationist websites.
Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
To Pahu, hard evidence either doesn't really exist or is considered irrelevant if it doesn't fall in line with his line of thinking. Provide him with a plethora of links to independent sources for evidence, he denies it & comes up with something like "Where is the evidence". When challenged himself to come up with independent sources he merely pastes more twaddle from his Lord & Master, Dolt Brown, believing that we are going to accept that as 'evidence'.
If you Google "Pahu" or the phrase "Science Disproves Evolution" (the title of this thread) you will find that he spends all his time flooding the same old crap all over the internet, although not always under the same name.
There is a commonly held belief that Pahu is either (1) Walt Brown himself, desperately trying to subversively spam his fantasies, or (2) a Bot, with no capability of independent thought, merely programmed to randomly paste passages from a very limited database.
I think everyone has come across the "Old Crazy On The Bus" at some time or another - well, meet Pahu. That's him.
If you Google "Pahu" or the phrase "Science Disproves Evolution" (the title of this thread) you will find that he spends all his time flooding the same old crap all over the internet, although not always under the same name.
There is a commonly held belief that Pahu is either (1) Walt Brown himself, desperately trying to subversively spam his fantasies, or (2) a Bot, with no capability of independent thought, merely programmed to randomly paste passages from a very limited database.
I think everyone has come across the "Old Crazy On The Bus" at some time or another - well, meet Pahu. That's him.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1487734 wrote: Do Bacteria Evolve Resistance to Antibiotics?
Often the claim is made in biology classes that evolution has been observed in certain microbes—germs that over time have developed a resistance to antibiotics. For instance, penicillin is generally now less effective than before. Stronger and more focused drugs have been developed, each with initial benefits, but which must continue to be replaced with something stronger. Now, "super germs" defy treatment.
One might ask, have these single-celled germs "evolved"? And does this prove that single-celled organisms evolved into plants and people?
As is frequently the case, we must first distinguish between variation, adaptation, and recombination of existing traits (i.e., microevolution) and the appearance of new and different genes, body parts, and traits (i.e., macroevolution). Does this acquired resistance to antibiotics, this population shift, this dominant exhibition of a previously minority trait point to macroevolution? Since each species of germ remained that same species and nothing new was produced, the answer is no!
Here's how it works. In a given population of bacteria, many genes are present which express themselves in a variety of ways. In a natural environment, the genes (and traits) are freely mixed. When exposed to an antibiotic, most of the microbes die. But some, through a fortuitous genetic recombination, possess a resistance to the antibiotic. They are the only ones to reproduce, and their descendants inherit the same genetic resistance. Over time, virtually all possess this resistance. Thus the population has lost the ability to produce individuals with a sensitivity to the antibiotic. No new genetic information was produced; indeed, genetic information was lost.
A new line of research has produced tantalizing results. Evidently, when stressed, some microbes go into a mutation mode, rapidly producing a variety of strains, thereby increasing the odds that some will survive the stress. This has produced some interesting areas for speculation by creationists, but it still mitigates against evolution. There is a tremendous scope of genetic potential already present in a cell, but E. coli bacteria before stress and mutation remain E. coli. Minor change has taken place, but not true evolution.
Furthermore, it has been proven that resistance to many modern antibiotics was present decades before their discovery. In 1845, sailors on an ill-fated Arctic expedition were buried in the permafrost and remained deeply frozen until their bodies were exhumed in 1986. Preservation was so complete that six strains of nineteenth-century bacteria found dormant in the contents of the sailors' intestines were able to be revived! When tested, these bacteria were found to possess resistance to several modern-day antibiotics, including penicillin. Such traits were obviously present prior to penicillin's discovery, and thus could not be an evolutionary development.
Here's the point. Mutations, adaptation, variation, diversity, population shifts, etc., all occur, but, these are not macroevolutionary changes.
Do Bacteria Evolve Resistance to Antibiotics? | The Institute for Creation Research
ANY change, no matter how small, MUST be viewed as EVOLUTION, surely? If not, why has the change occurred? Answer; it has evolved to meet NEW circumstances; in the case of bacteria, this is often stronger antibiotics.
The bacteria have EVOLVED.
Often the claim is made in biology classes that evolution has been observed in certain microbes—germs that over time have developed a resistance to antibiotics. For instance, penicillin is generally now less effective than before. Stronger and more focused drugs have been developed, each with initial benefits, but which must continue to be replaced with something stronger. Now, "super germs" defy treatment.
One might ask, have these single-celled germs "evolved"? And does this prove that single-celled organisms evolved into plants and people?
As is frequently the case, we must first distinguish between variation, adaptation, and recombination of existing traits (i.e., microevolution) and the appearance of new and different genes, body parts, and traits (i.e., macroevolution). Does this acquired resistance to antibiotics, this population shift, this dominant exhibition of a previously minority trait point to macroevolution? Since each species of germ remained that same species and nothing new was produced, the answer is no!
Here's how it works. In a given population of bacteria, many genes are present which express themselves in a variety of ways. In a natural environment, the genes (and traits) are freely mixed. When exposed to an antibiotic, most of the microbes die. But some, through a fortuitous genetic recombination, possess a resistance to the antibiotic. They are the only ones to reproduce, and their descendants inherit the same genetic resistance. Over time, virtually all possess this resistance. Thus the population has lost the ability to produce individuals with a sensitivity to the antibiotic. No new genetic information was produced; indeed, genetic information was lost.
A new line of research has produced tantalizing results. Evidently, when stressed, some microbes go into a mutation mode, rapidly producing a variety of strains, thereby increasing the odds that some will survive the stress. This has produced some interesting areas for speculation by creationists, but it still mitigates against evolution. There is a tremendous scope of genetic potential already present in a cell, but E. coli bacteria before stress and mutation remain E. coli. Minor change has taken place, but not true evolution.
Furthermore, it has been proven that resistance to many modern antibiotics was present decades before their discovery. In 1845, sailors on an ill-fated Arctic expedition were buried in the permafrost and remained deeply frozen until their bodies were exhumed in 1986. Preservation was so complete that six strains of nineteenth-century bacteria found dormant in the contents of the sailors' intestines were able to be revived! When tested, these bacteria were found to possess resistance to several modern-day antibiotics, including penicillin. Such traits were obviously present prior to penicillin's discovery, and thus could not be an evolutionary development.
Here's the point. Mutations, adaptation, variation, diversity, population shifts, etc., all occur, but, these are not macroevolutionary changes.
Do Bacteria Evolve Resistance to Antibiotics? | The Institute for Creation Research
ANY change, no matter how small, MUST be viewed as EVOLUTION, surely? If not, why has the change occurred? Answer; it has evolved to meet NEW circumstances; in the case of bacteria, this is often stronger antibiotics.
The bacteria have EVOLVED.
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1487767 wrote: To be fair, he does always give accreditation - not that there's really any point. His one & only source is Walt Brown's one & only book, which has even been refuted by other Creation Scientists.
The information in Walt Brown's has never been refuted and is not my only source. Also, 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
He consistently pastes a list of noted names, coupled with a catalogue of publications, but has yet to provide any point of reference between the two, despite multiple challenges to do so.
I have given you how to reference between the two. Perhaps you missed it. First, go here: The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory. Next go to the index. Next go to the name of the scientist.
On the rare occasion when he has provided actual quotes (pasted from the book), with a simple bit of Google research it has been proven that the quotes have been creatively edited (I wonder if that is the real meaning of Creationist) so as to take the words out of context & to change their meaning, such as with that of Stephen Hawking - supposedly affirming the existence of a God & accrediting the creation of the Universe to him conveniently omitting such words as "What need for a God?", which totally reverses the intended meaning of the quote.
I have asked you to provide quotes that have changed the meaning of the context, but you have failed to provide any. In the case of Stephen Hawking's quote, you have completely twisted it. Here is the context from Brown: "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. Here is Hawking's confirmation: 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. Hawking's statement is true and confirms what Brown concluded. The rest of Hawking's statement is evidence free speculation.
The only other names he provides, once again with a little Google research show them to be in the employ of Walt Brown at his own Creationist Institute, or a few other selective Creationist websites.
None of the scientists quoted are in the employ of Walt Brown. Most of them believe in evolution.
The information in Walt Brown's has never been refuted and is not my only source. Also, 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
He consistently pastes a list of noted names, coupled with a catalogue of publications, but has yet to provide any point of reference between the two, despite multiple challenges to do so.
I have given you how to reference between the two. Perhaps you missed it. First, go here: The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory. Next go to the index. Next go to the name of the scientist.
On the rare occasion when he has provided actual quotes (pasted from the book), with a simple bit of Google research it has been proven that the quotes have been creatively edited (I wonder if that is the real meaning of Creationist) so as to take the words out of context & to change their meaning, such as with that of Stephen Hawking - supposedly affirming the existence of a God & accrediting the creation of the Universe to him conveniently omitting such words as "What need for a God?", which totally reverses the intended meaning of the quote.
I have asked you to provide quotes that have changed the meaning of the context, but you have failed to provide any. In the case of Stephen Hawking's quote, you have completely twisted it. Here is the context from Brown: "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. Here is Hawking's confirmation: 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. Hawking's statement is true and confirms what Brown concluded. The rest of Hawking's statement is evidence free speculation.
The only other names he provides, once again with a little Google research show them to be in the employ of Walt Brown at his own Creationist Institute, or a few other selective Creationist websites.
None of the scientists quoted are in the employ of Walt Brown. Most of them believe in evolution.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Smaug;1487777 wrote: ANY change, no matter how small, MUST be viewed as EVOLUTION, surely? If not, why has the change occurred? Answer; it has evolved to meet NEW circumstances; in the case of bacteria, this is often stronger antibiotics.
The bacteria have EVOLVED.
Denying the facts does not prove your evidence free assertions.
The bacteria have EVOLVED.
Denying the facts does not prove your evidence free assertions.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1487788 wrote: Denying the facts does not prove your evidence free assertions.
Coming from you, that line has a "Special" significance.
Coming from you, that line has a "Special" significance.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1487788 wrote: Denying the facts does not prove your evidence free assertions.
Hark at pots calling kettles.....The only evidence-free assertions are the ones you are propounding, Pahu. Or should I call you Walt?
Hark at pots calling kettles.....The only evidence-free assertions are the ones you are propounding, Pahu. Or should I call you Walt?
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Science Disproves Evolution
Smaug;1487799 wrote: Hark at pots calling kettles.....The only evidence-free assertions are the ones you are propounding, Pahu. Or should I call you Walt?
About 99% of my posts contain evidence. Please show me evidence free assertions I have propounded. And no, I am not Walt.
About 99% of my posts contain evidence. Please show me evidence free assertions I have propounded. And no, I am not Walt.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Total nonsense.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1487787 wrote: The information in Walt Brown's has never been refuted and is not my only source. Also, 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
I have given you how to reference between the two. Perhaps you missed it. First, go here: The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory. Next go to the index. Next go to the name of the scientist.
I have asked you to provide quotes that have changed the meaning of the context, but you have failed to provide any. In the case of Stephen Hawking's quote, you have completely twisted it. Here is the context from Brown: "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. Here is Hawking's confirmation: 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. Hawking's statement is true and confirms what Brown concluded. The rest of Hawking's statement is evidence free speculation.
None of the scientists quoted are in the employ of Walt Brown. Most of them believe in evolution.
That is such a brilliant response. You have just verified exactly what I just said. You started with same old list of names & catalogue of publications without any reference between the two - just as I said you would.
You refer to the Center for Scientific Creation as an Independent Source. Read this 1st paragraph on the Wikipedia page about Walt Brown:
Walter T. Brown (Aug 1937) is a young earth creationist, who is the director of his own ministry called the Center for Scientific Creation.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brow ... tionist%29)
You don't seem to grasp the idea of the word "Context". This is your [Brown's] quote from Hawking:
“So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.
This is the ENTIRE quote which, when taken in CONTEXT takes on an entirely different meaning. Even the word immdediately following the sentence (BUT) indicates this much:
“So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would neither be created or destroyed. It would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?
In your last post giving names of supposedly independent scientists I Googled background of every one of them, and each and every one of them that had any trace of existing on the internet were connected in some way to the Center for Creation Science. This demonstrates that they are in his employ.
I have also, earlier in this thread, provided links to other Creationists websites where they have refuted Walt Browns claims, including at least one video peer review.
Unlike you, I don't continually copy & paste the same old stuff. Just check back through the thread & you'll find it. In your one post you have just confirmed everything I said. Thank you.
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
I have given you how to reference between the two. Perhaps you missed it. First, go here: The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory. Next go to the index. Next go to the name of the scientist.
I have asked you to provide quotes that have changed the meaning of the context, but you have failed to provide any. In the case of Stephen Hawking's quote, you have completely twisted it. Here is the context from Brown: "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. Here is Hawking's confirmation: 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. Hawking's statement is true and confirms what Brown concluded. The rest of Hawking's statement is evidence free speculation.
None of the scientists quoted are in the employ of Walt Brown. Most of them believe in evolution.
That is such a brilliant response. You have just verified exactly what I just said. You started with same old list of names & catalogue of publications without any reference between the two - just as I said you would.
You refer to the Center for Scientific Creation as an Independent Source. Read this 1st paragraph on the Wikipedia page about Walt Brown:
Walter T. Brown (Aug 1937) is a young earth creationist, who is the director of his own ministry called the Center for Scientific Creation.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brow ... tionist%29)
You don't seem to grasp the idea of the word "Context". This is your [Brown's] quote from Hawking:
“So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.
This is the ENTIRE quote which, when taken in CONTEXT takes on an entirely different meaning. Even the word immdediately following the sentence (BUT) indicates this much:
“So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would neither be created or destroyed. It would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?
In your last post giving names of supposedly independent scientists I Googled background of every one of them, and each and every one of them that had any trace of existing on the internet were connected in some way to the Center for Creation Science. This demonstrates that they are in his employ.
I have also, earlier in this thread, provided links to other Creationists websites where they have refuted Walt Browns claims, including at least one video peer review.
Unlike you, I don't continually copy & paste the same old stuff. Just check back through the thread & you'll find it. In your one post you have just confirmed everything I said. Thank you.
Science Disproves Evolution
Talk about 'cherry-picking' the bits that suit, Pahu! Then take various statements (too many to list) out of their full context and ignore the rest.
Sorted!
Sorted!
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1487851 wrote:
You don't seem to grasp the idea of the word "Context". This is your [Brown's] quote from Hawking:
“So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.
This is the ENTIRE quote which, when taken in CONTEXT takes on an entirely different meaning. Even the word immdediately following the sentence (BUT) indicates this much:
“So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would neither be created or destroyed. It would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?
Please note that there is no attempt by Brown to suggest Hawking believes in God. He is just pointing out Hawking's correct statement, which agrees with his conclusion. The rest of his statement is evidence free speculation.
In your last post giving names of supposedly independent scientists I Googled background of every one of them, and each and every one of them that had any trace of existing on the internet were connected in some way to the Center for Creation Science. This demonstrates that they are in his employ.
Did your Google search also include Hawking as being in the employ of Brown?
You don't seem to grasp the idea of the word "Context". This is your [Brown's] quote from Hawking:
“So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.
This is the ENTIRE quote which, when taken in CONTEXT takes on an entirely different meaning. Even the word immdediately following the sentence (BUT) indicates this much:
“So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would neither be created or destroyed. It would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?
Please note that there is no attempt by Brown to suggest Hawking believes in God. He is just pointing out Hawking's correct statement, which agrees with his conclusion. The rest of his statement is evidence free speculation.
In your last post giving names of supposedly independent scientists I Googled background of every one of them, and each and every one of them that had any trace of existing on the internet were connected in some way to the Center for Creation Science. This demonstrates that they are in his employ.
Did your Google search also include Hawking as being in the employ of Brown?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
You just don't get it do you? He is making a single statement in 2 parts. This 1st part is that given a certain set of circumstances, then one could SUPPOSE (ie imagine without foundation) there were a God. However he goes on to say that this would only apply if the Universe were a self contained unit without boundaries. The point being that the Universe DOES have boundaries. The Universe is known to be expanding. Therefore the conditions required for the first supposition are not true, therefore the supposition itself is invalid. THAT is why Brown so conveniently omits the latter part of the quote.
I certainly wouldn't insult Hawking by implying he was in the employ of Brown. No matter what Brown may say, Hawking's words do not support Brown in anyway whatsoever - quite the contrary. The example of the creatively edited quote quote demonstrates the depths that Brown will sink to in his attempts to misdirect the gullible.
I certainly wouldn't insult Hawking by implying he was in the employ of Brown. No matter what Brown may say, Hawking's words do not support Brown in anyway whatsoever - quite the contrary. The example of the creatively edited quote quote demonstrates the depths that Brown will sink to in his attempts to misdirect the gullible.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1487864 wrote:
I certainly wouldn't insult Hawking by implying he was in the employ of Brown. No matter what Brown may say, Hawking's words do not support Brown in anyway whatsoever - quite the contrary. The example of the creatively edited quote quote demonstrates the depths that Brown will sink to in his attempts to misdirect the gullible.
But you said: "In your last post giving names of supposedly independent scientists I Googled background of every one of them, and each and every one of them that had any trace of existing on the internet were connected in some way to the Center for Creation Science. This demonstrates that they are in his employ." Hawking is on that list.
I certainly wouldn't insult Hawking by implying he was in the employ of Brown. No matter what Brown may say, Hawking's words do not support Brown in anyway whatsoever - quite the contrary. The example of the creatively edited quote quote demonstrates the depths that Brown will sink to in his attempts to misdirect the gullible.
But you said: "In your last post giving names of supposedly independent scientists I Googled background of every one of them, and each and every one of them that had any trace of existing on the internet were connected in some way to the Center for Creation Science. This demonstrates that they are in his employ." Hawking is on that list.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Not on the list to which I refer he wasn't.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1487868 wrote: Not on the list to which I refer he wasn't.
What list were you referring to? I thought you were referring to this list of scientists who confirm Brown's conclusions:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
What list were you referring to? I thought you were referring to this list of scientists who confirm Brown's conclusions:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1487869 wrote: I thought you were referring to this list:
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
No, that's the one I referred when I was describing how you always insisted on pasting the same meaning list of names & publications with no references between them, making their meaning totally invalid (which you so courteously proved for me by immediately doing just that). This list to which I refer is covered in post #2133 & response in post #2134, itemising each individual name & the results found (where applicable).
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
No, that's the one I referred when I was describing how you always insisted on pasting the same meaning list of names & publications with no references between them, making their meaning totally invalid (which you so courteously proved for me by immediately doing just that). This list to which I refer is covered in post #2133 & response in post #2134, itemising each individual name & the results found (where applicable).
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1487870 wrote: No, that's the one I referred when I was describing how you always insisted on pasting the same meaning list of names & publications with no references between them, making their meaning totally invalid (which you so courteously proved for me by immediately doing just that). This list to which I refer is covered in post #2133 & response in post #2134, itemising each individual name & the results found (where applicable).
It may be true that those scientists are creationists, but I doubt any of them are "employed" by Brown. Let's take a closer look at that list and note their qualifications:
HERE’S WHAT OTHERS SAY ABOUT THIS EXCITING BOOK
Walt Brown’s book is the rarest of species: It is the most complete reference work I have encountered on the scientific aspects of the multifaceted subject of origins. At the same time it presents a comprehensive theoretical framework (his hydroplate theory) for reconciling the many seemingly unrelated, and sometimes apparently contradictory, facts that bear on these questions. This book is essential for any teacher or student who is serious about resolving these issues on the basis of the evidences rather than on opinions or unsubstantiated or unverifiable hypotheses.
Dr. C. Stuart Patterson, former Academic Dean and Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus, Furman University
The subject of origins is not peripheral; it is foundational. I have spent most of my adult career in universities in the U.S. and Europe (as a Fulbright scholar), and it is clear that Christianity is losing ground on college campuses. The Christian faith is becoming unraveled with bad science. I can say without reservation that In the Beginning is the single most useful resource I know of on this subject, bar none. Walt is both diligent and creative, and you will find the arguments concise and thought provoking. The material is helpful on almost any level, and the references will be invaluable to those wishing to dig deeper. If I had to send my child off with only two books, they would be the Bible and In the Beginning.
Dr. Kent Davey, Senior Research Scientist, The Center for Electromechanics, University of Texas at Austin
Classic uniformitarian geology has failed to solve a number of problems in geology. By contrast, using catastrophic basic assumptions, Dr. Brown has given scientists a way of addressing many problems that is philosophically sound and scientifically acceptable to objective thinkers. Never before have I encountered a more intellectually satisfying and respectable attack on a broad spectrum of geologic and biologic problems that are laid bare in this work.
Dr. Douglas A. Block, Geology Professor, Emeritus, Rock Valley College
Dr. Walt Brown uses three striking gifts in his creation science research and teaching: (1) a highly organized mind, (2) the ability to consider scientific evidence without the encumbrance of conventional paradigms, and (3) the ability to articulate the material with complete clarity. Walt is a born teacher. This enables him to develop significant new theories, such as the hydroplate theory, and to present them with remarkable clarity in both his seminars and this book. I am convinced that everyone needs to be familiar with the landmark work documented in this book.
Dr. Stanley A. Mumma, Professor of Architectural Engineering, Pennsylvania State University
Dr. Walt Brown’s seminal text, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood has developed into a mature exposition of an important new approach to the geological sciences. The hydroplate theory is an alternate explanation of events of the Noahic flood, present-day geological features of the world, and actual mechanisms that operated then and continue to do so now. It directly challenges the current plate tectonics model of large-scale geology, and suggests a major revamping of the geological events associated with the flood God sent upon the world in light of the clear text of Genesis. It represents, then, a serious attempt at reconstructing the science of geology from the ground up.
Martin G. Selbrede, “Reconstructing Geology: Dr. Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory, Chalcedon Report
The subject of origins is inherently interesting to all of us, yet this topic is so broad that one can get lost in the sheer volume of information. As a biologist and a Christian, I find In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood to be the most concise, scholarly treatment of the scientific evidence supporting creation that I have ever read. This book is a must for anyone who is serious about understanding the creation/evolution debate. Science teachers, regardless of religious affinities, should also find this excellent resource a valuable addition to their reference libraries.
Terrence R. Mondy, Outstanding Biology Teacher for Illinois, 1999–2000
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...dorsements.htm
It may be true that those scientists are creationists, but I doubt any of them are "employed" by Brown. Let's take a closer look at that list and note their qualifications:
HERE’S WHAT OTHERS SAY ABOUT THIS EXCITING BOOK
Walt Brown’s book is the rarest of species: It is the most complete reference work I have encountered on the scientific aspects of the multifaceted subject of origins. At the same time it presents a comprehensive theoretical framework (his hydroplate theory) for reconciling the many seemingly unrelated, and sometimes apparently contradictory, facts that bear on these questions. This book is essential for any teacher or student who is serious about resolving these issues on the basis of the evidences rather than on opinions or unsubstantiated or unverifiable hypotheses.
Dr. C. Stuart Patterson, former Academic Dean and Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus, Furman University
The subject of origins is not peripheral; it is foundational. I have spent most of my adult career in universities in the U.S. and Europe (as a Fulbright scholar), and it is clear that Christianity is losing ground on college campuses. The Christian faith is becoming unraveled with bad science. I can say without reservation that In the Beginning is the single most useful resource I know of on this subject, bar none. Walt is both diligent and creative, and you will find the arguments concise and thought provoking. The material is helpful on almost any level, and the references will be invaluable to those wishing to dig deeper. If I had to send my child off with only two books, they would be the Bible and In the Beginning.
Dr. Kent Davey, Senior Research Scientist, The Center for Electromechanics, University of Texas at Austin
Classic uniformitarian geology has failed to solve a number of problems in geology. By contrast, using catastrophic basic assumptions, Dr. Brown has given scientists a way of addressing many problems that is philosophically sound and scientifically acceptable to objective thinkers. Never before have I encountered a more intellectually satisfying and respectable attack on a broad spectrum of geologic and biologic problems that are laid bare in this work.
Dr. Douglas A. Block, Geology Professor, Emeritus, Rock Valley College
Dr. Walt Brown uses three striking gifts in his creation science research and teaching: (1) a highly organized mind, (2) the ability to consider scientific evidence without the encumbrance of conventional paradigms, and (3) the ability to articulate the material with complete clarity. Walt is a born teacher. This enables him to develop significant new theories, such as the hydroplate theory, and to present them with remarkable clarity in both his seminars and this book. I am convinced that everyone needs to be familiar with the landmark work documented in this book.
Dr. Stanley A. Mumma, Professor of Architectural Engineering, Pennsylvania State University
Dr. Walt Brown’s seminal text, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood has developed into a mature exposition of an important new approach to the geological sciences. The hydroplate theory is an alternate explanation of events of the Noahic flood, present-day geological features of the world, and actual mechanisms that operated then and continue to do so now. It directly challenges the current plate tectonics model of large-scale geology, and suggests a major revamping of the geological events associated with the flood God sent upon the world in light of the clear text of Genesis. It represents, then, a serious attempt at reconstructing the science of geology from the ground up.
Martin G. Selbrede, “Reconstructing Geology: Dr. Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory, Chalcedon Report
The subject of origins is inherently interesting to all of us, yet this topic is so broad that one can get lost in the sheer volume of information. As a biologist and a Christian, I find In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood to be the most concise, scholarly treatment of the scientific evidence supporting creation that I have ever read. This book is a must for anyone who is serious about understanding the creation/evolution debate. Science teachers, regardless of religious affinities, should also find this excellent resource a valuable addition to their reference libraries.
Terrence R. Mondy, Outstanding Biology Teacher for Illinois, 1999–2000
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...dorsements.htm
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
You guys have a lot of patience in dealing with ??????. I ran out of patience some time ago but I do read the posts. Got to give Pahu A for effort even if incredibly ??????.
Science Disproves Evolution
Can't you just stop with the perpetual pastings - as soon as I see that multi-coloured headline I, like everyone else, just scrolls past it all. Why can't you just paste a simple hyperlink to your source material if you must. At least in that way if anyone is in the slightest bit interested they can go & read it for themselves - in other words, resulting in a website with practically no hits.
It may be true that those scientists are creationists, but I doubt any of them are "employed" by Brown.
The way I see it is like this.
1. Walt Brown is the Director of his own Center for Creation Science.
2. People who work / have worked for the Center are / have been in the employ of Brown.
3. All the supposed 'Scientists' who have / have had professional connections with the Center are / have been in the employ of Walt Brown.
The response I referred to listed each & every one, with the source information highlighting their links to the Center. You see, rather than referring a single source of information, I do research on a wider spectrum. I don't take things at face value. You, on the other hand blindly believe everything Brown says (unless you really are, as suspected, Brown himself) without having the wherewithal to question things or to research corroborating or refuting evidence. Your attitude is simply "Brown says it is so, therefore it is so". You never ask yourself anything like "Why does he think this? Where is the independent proof for this? Where in these publications he lists are there any references supposedly made by the names that he tries to match with them?" If you were to ask these sort of questions & do some elementary Googling you might find out a lot more than you expected. As it is, you are of the mindset that has kept dogmatic belief in the Dark Ages with the belief that there is this big magic man sitting in the sky, and that is the answer to all questions, so there's no point in asking any questions because we already have the answer.
It may be true that those scientists are creationists, but I doubt any of them are "employed" by Brown.
The way I see it is like this.
1. Walt Brown is the Director of his own Center for Creation Science.
2. People who work / have worked for the Center are / have been in the employ of Brown.
3. All the supposed 'Scientists' who have / have had professional connections with the Center are / have been in the employ of Walt Brown.
The response I referred to listed each & every one, with the source information highlighting their links to the Center. You see, rather than referring a single source of information, I do research on a wider spectrum. I don't take things at face value. You, on the other hand blindly believe everything Brown says (unless you really are, as suspected, Brown himself) without having the wherewithal to question things or to research corroborating or refuting evidence. Your attitude is simply "Brown says it is so, therefore it is so". You never ask yourself anything like "Why does he think this? Where is the independent proof for this? Where in these publications he lists are there any references supposedly made by the names that he tries to match with them?" If you were to ask these sort of questions & do some elementary Googling you might find out a lot more than you expected. As it is, you are of the mindset that has kept dogmatic belief in the Dark Ages with the belief that there is this big magic man sitting in the sky, and that is the answer to all questions, so there's no point in asking any questions because we already have the answer.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart you are a man of patience. You are absolutely correct about giving us a hyperlink to his sources. As for proof if Brown says it it must be true and I am the man of the second coming because I say so. OK every one bow down???????????
Science Disproves Evolution
/Me bows most reverently.
Science Disproves Evolution
It would be interesting to have hear God speaking to Moses. Moses--"Do we need a colon there". God---"What's a colon". or how about Noah God----"Noah I want you to build an arc" Noah---"What in hell is an arc".
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1487901 wrote: It would be interesting to have hear God speaking to Moses. Moses--"Do we need a colon there". God---"What's a colon". or how about Noah God----"Noah I want you to build an arc" Noah---"What in hell is an arc".
God-- "An ark? Don't you know nuffink? It's what the 'erald angels sing".
God-- "An ark? Don't you know nuffink? It's what the 'erald angels sing".
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1487889 wrote:
Your attitude is simply "Brown says it is so, therefore it is so". You never ask yourself anything like "Why does he think this? Where is the independent proof for this? Where in these publications he lists are there any references supposedly made by the names that he tries to match with them?" If you were to ask these sort of questions & do some elementary Googling you might find out a lot more than you expected. As it is, you are of the mindset that has kept dogmatic belief in the Dark Ages with the belief that there is this big magic man sitting in the sky, and that is the answer to all questions, so there's no point in asking any questions because we already have the answer.
You are in evidence free denial. All of Brown's conclusions are based on well researched science and are confirmed by scientists.
Your attitude is simply "Brown says it is so, therefore it is so". You never ask yourself anything like "Why does he think this? Where is the independent proof for this? Where in these publications he lists are there any references supposedly made by the names that he tries to match with them?" If you were to ask these sort of questions & do some elementary Googling you might find out a lot more than you expected. As it is, you are of the mindset that has kept dogmatic belief in the Dark Ages with the belief that there is this big magic man sitting in the sky, and that is the answer to all questions, so there's no point in asking any questions because we already have the answer.
You are in evidence free denial. All of Brown's conclusions are based on well researched science and are confirmed by scientists.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
I'll say it again, then....
Talk about 'cherry-picking' the bits that suit, Pahu! Then take various statements (too many to list) out of their full context and ignore the rest.
Sorted!
Talk about 'cherry-picking' the bits that suit, Pahu! Then take various statements (too many to list) out of their full context and ignore the rest.
Sorted!
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Science Disproves Evolution
Star Births? Stellar Evolution? 1
¨Evolutionists claim that stars form from swirling clouds of dust and gas. For this to happen, vast amounts of energy, angular momentum, and residual magnetism must be removed from each cloud. This is not observed today, and astronomers and physicists have not explained, in an experimentally verifiable way, how it all could happen (a).
The most luminous stars in our galaxy, called O stars, are “burning fuel hundreds of thousands of times more rapidly than our Sun. This is so rapid that they must be quite young on an evolutionary time scale. If these stars evolved, they should show easily measurable characteristics, such as extremely high rates of rotation and enormous magnetic fields. Because these characteristics are not observed, it seems quite likely these stars did not evolve.
a. “The universe we see when we look out to its furthest horizons contains a hundred billion galaxies. Each of these galaxies contains another hundred billion stars. That’s 10^22 stars all told. The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form. Martin Harwit, Book Reviews, Science, Vol. 231, 7 March 1986, pp. 1201–1202.
Harwit also lists three serious problems with all theories that claim stars formed—or are forming—by the gravitational collapse of interstellar gas clouds:
i. “The contracting gas clouds must radiate energy in order to continue their contraction; the potential energy that is liberated in this pre-stellar phase must be observable somehow, but we have yet to detect and identify it.
ii. “The angular momentum that resides in typical interstellar clouds is many orders of magnitude higher than the angular momentum we compute for the relatively slowly spinning young stars; where and how has the protostar shed that angular momentum during contraction?
iii. “Interstellar clouds are permeated by magnetic fields that we believe to be effectively frozen to the contracting gas; as the gas cloud collapses to form a star, the magnetic field lines should be compressed ever closer together, giving rise to enormous magnetic fields, long before the collapse is completed. These fields would resist further collapse, preventing the formation of the expected star; yet we observe no evidence of strong fields, and the stars do form, apparently unaware of our theoretical difficulties.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
He doesn't get the idea of how to use a hyperlink does he? He seems to think that because he has gone to the trouble of copying something to his clipboard & then pasting a load of totally irrelevant drivel that somebody is actually going to read it - or even less plausible, actually take any notice of it.
True to form, he has just gone & proved another of my descriptions of his modus operandi, by moving on to pasting a new, unrelated chapter once he has lost an argument.
No doubt the next pasting will be his unexplained list from Who's Who & the catalogue from the local Newsagent. Despite being challenged many times to provide the relevant connections between one & the other he has never once managed it. Why? Because he only has one source & that is the one & only book Brown has ever produced. It has no mention of any connection between the 2 anywhere in the book, therefore Pahu has no knowledge of any connection either. He just blindly believes it to be so because his Lord & Master says so.
Once again, Pahu. I challenge you. Provide me with even one of the names from that list & match it to a link from one of the numerous catalogued publications, showing exactly WHERE & WHEN any of these claims were substantiated. Feel free to provide more. They will be most welcome, but for now, just one will be enough to be going on with. If you fail to meet this challenge then you will have conceded that there is no connection between one & the other and that any associated claims are therefore false by default because they cannot be verified.
True to form, he has just gone & proved another of my descriptions of his modus operandi, by moving on to pasting a new, unrelated chapter once he has lost an argument.
No doubt the next pasting will be his unexplained list from Who's Who & the catalogue from the local Newsagent. Despite being challenged many times to provide the relevant connections between one & the other he has never once managed it. Why? Because he only has one source & that is the one & only book Brown has ever produced. It has no mention of any connection between the 2 anywhere in the book, therefore Pahu has no knowledge of any connection either. He just blindly believes it to be so because his Lord & Master says so.
Once again, Pahu. I challenge you. Provide me with even one of the names from that list & match it to a link from one of the numerous catalogued publications, showing exactly WHERE & WHEN any of these claims were substantiated. Feel free to provide more. They will be most welcome, but for now, just one will be enough to be going on with. If you fail to meet this challenge then you will have conceded that there is no connection between one & the other and that any associated claims are therefore false by default because they cannot be verified.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1488040 wrote:
Once again, Pahu. I challenge you. Provide me with even one of the names from that list & match it to a link from one of the numerous catalogued publications, showing exactly WHERE & WHEN any of these claims were substantiated. Feel free to provide more. They will be most welcome, but for now, just one will be enough to be going on with. If you fail to meet this challenge then you will have conceded that there is no connection between one & the other and that any associated claims are therefore false by default because they cannot be verified.
I have given you information on how to connect the dots several times and you ignore it.
Once again, Pahu. I challenge you. Provide me with even one of the names from that list & match it to a link from one of the numerous catalogued publications, showing exactly WHERE & WHEN any of these claims were substantiated. Feel free to provide more. They will be most welcome, but for now, just one will be enough to be going on with. If you fail to meet this challenge then you will have conceded that there is no connection between one & the other and that any associated claims are therefore false by default because they cannot be verified.
I have given you information on how to connect the dots several times and you ignore it.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
So you are not meeting the challenge?
Science Disproves Evolution
Is the Cambrian Explosion Problem Solved?
Cambrian rock layers contain many strange animal fossils, and very few fossils appear in layers below them. Called the "Cambrian explosion of life," the creatures in these layers come from all the major groups of animals alive today (including fish, which represent the vertebrates), plus many more that later became extinct.
Evolutionists, starting with Charles Darwin, have had a difficult time explaining why such richly diverse aquatic life forms appeared so suddenly and with no trace of evolutionary ancestry in lower (pre-Cambrian) rocks. According to neo-Darwinism, new life forms develop through time, chance, and death. Without the time, the formula cannot work, and yet Cambrian fossils are a parade of well-designed creatures that lived at the same time, not in separate evolutionary ages.
This problem is what some scientists term the "Cambrian Conundrum,"1 and researchers recently made another attempt to solve it. But their scenario, published in the journal Science, is a series of unfounded ad hoc stories coated with a scientific-sounding façade.
The standard tale is that Cambrian creatures did not evolve until about 500 million years ago. In contrast, these authors suggested that animals were actually alive and evolving 800 million years ago. But without the fossils to support their story, why should other scientists believe it?
Their answer was to ignore the fossils and emphasize molecular clocks. When the idea of a molecular clock was first conceived, researchers believed that DNA bases change at a steady rate over time, and thus "tick" at a reliable rate.
However, a decade of abundant research has clearly shown that DNA base change rates are not steady at all, and they are restricted to mutational "hot spots" and non-lethal changes that are different for various genes. For these reasons, and because most molecular clock-based evolutionary histories are markedly different from fossil-based ones, researchers routinely "calibrate" molecular clocks to fossils of supposedly "known ages."2, 3 The molecular clock estimates in this Science study were adjusted to 24 fossil-based "ages."
Thus tuned, the researchers' clocks indicated that "the last common ancestor of all living animals arose nearly 800 Ma [million years ago]."1 This falls within the range reported by Stony Brook University's Barry Levinson, who wrote in BioScience in 2008 that the molecular-based histories constantly contradict the fossil-based histories of life on earth.4
But if this molecule-based age of 800 million years is true, then how did animals avoid fossilization for 300 million years?
The Science authors dismissed this problem and wrote that "teasing apart the mechanisms underlying the Cambrian explosion requires disentangling evolutionary origins from geological first appearances, and the only way to separate the two is to use a molecular clock."1 In other words, they asserted that molecular clock procedures, though known to be unreliable, provide the real evolutionary history, not fossils.
The fact that these authors calibrated their "clock" to fossil age assignments proves that their clock was just as unreliable as prior clocks. It relied on the very fossil ages that their attempted solution to the Cambrian Conundrum tried to avoid! They can't have it both ways, and they should not have cherry-picked parts of the fossil record to serve their story—or the seven genes that best served their molecular clock estimates.
The Cambrian Conundrum is still a fossil-based problem for evolution. But now that evolution-based molecular clocks fly in the face of the evolution-based history attached to fossils, the conundrum has only worsened.
But the creation model suffers no such difficulties. Since vast marine animal varieties were killed and deposited at the same time when swept up and buried by Noah's Flood, it would be expected to find a sudden "explosion" of them in the rock record.
Is the Cambrian Explosion Problem Solved? | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
That has to be one of the most ludicrous things you have ever posted.
It demonstrates the author's complete ignorance.
It demonstrates the author's complete ignorance.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1488236 wrote: That has to be one of the most ludicrous things you have ever posted.
It demonstrates the author's complete ignorance.
In what way is the author completely ignorant?
It demonstrates the author's complete ignorance.
In what way is the author completely ignorant?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
How many ways can one say, "completely" ?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1488040 wrote: Once again, Pahu. I challenge you. Provide me with even one of the names from that list & match it to a link from one of the numerous catalogued publications, showing exactly WHERE & WHEN any of these claims were substantiated. Feel free to provide more. They will be most welcome, but for now, just one will be enough to be going on with. If you fail to meet this challenge then you will have conceded that there is no connection between one & the other and that any associated claims are therefore false by default because they cannot be verified.
There we have it. By not meeting the terms of the challenge Pahu has conceded that the claimed connection between the names & publication is false due to non validation.
By the way - It is not my job to go and try to find some random dots to join in order to join them to try & prove an unprovable case. That is your task - to make the case absolute. You have been given a simple task. You apparently have all the answers. I am asking one simple question. You have failed to give a simple answer. Why? Because you can't prove the existence of something that doesn't exist.
There we have it. By not meeting the terms of the challenge Pahu has conceded that the claimed connection between the names & publication is false due to non validation.
By the way - It is not my job to go and try to find some random dots to join in order to join them to try & prove an unprovable case. That is your task - to make the case absolute. You have been given a simple task. You apparently have all the answers. I am asking one simple question. You have failed to give a simple answer. Why? Because you can't prove the existence of something that doesn't exist.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1488242 wrote: There we have it. By not meeting the terms of the challenge Pahu has conceded that the claimed connection between the names & publication is false due to non validation.
By the way - It is not my job to go and try to find some random dots to join in order to join them to try & prove an unprovable case. That is your task - to make the case absolute. You have been given a simple task. You apparently have all the answers. I am asking one simple question. You have failed to give a simple answer. Why? Because you can't prove the existence of something that doesn't exist.
As you are aware, I have provided the information you requested and you continue to ignore it. To make is simpler, give me a name and I will provide the publication, since you are unwilling to look it up yourself.
By the way - It is not my job to go and try to find some random dots to join in order to join them to try & prove an unprovable case. That is your task - to make the case absolute. You have been given a simple task. You apparently have all the answers. I am asking one simple question. You have failed to give a simple answer. Why? Because you can't prove the existence of something that doesn't exist.
As you are aware, I have provided the information you requested and you continue to ignore it. To make is simpler, give me a name and I will provide the publication, since you are unwilling to look it up yourself.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1488243 wrote: As you are aware, I have provided the information you requested and you continue to ignore it. To make is simpler, give me a name and I will provide the publication, since you are unwilling to look it up yourself.
1. You have done nothing of the sort.
2. How much simpler can I make it. You have the famous lists. Pick any one & match it up to one of them.
3. As I said it is not my task to search for the non-existent evidence. It is your claim that it is true. It is up to you to prove it, and every time you fail to do so increases the evidence that you cannot.
Also, remember I said to provide the particular item - not just the name of a publication.
Walt Brown does not cite the details, therefore you are at a total loss because he is your one & only source of misinformation.
1. You have done nothing of the sort.
2. How much simpler can I make it. You have the famous lists. Pick any one & match it up to one of them.
3. As I said it is not my task to search for the non-existent evidence. It is your claim that it is true. It is up to you to prove it, and every time you fail to do so increases the evidence that you cannot.
Also, remember I said to provide the particular item - not just the name of a publication.
Walt Brown does not cite the details, therefore you are at a total loss because he is your one & only source of misinformation.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1488248 wrote: 1. You have done nothing of the sort.
2. How much simpler can I make it. You have the famous lists. Pick any one & match it up to one of them.
3. As I said it is not my task to search for the non-existent evidence. It is your claim that it is true. It is up to you to prove it, and every time you fail to do so increases the evidence that you cannot.
Also, remember I said to provide the particular item - not just the name of a publication.
Walt Brown does not cite the details, therefore you are at a total loss because he is your one & only source of misinformation.
Okay, let's pick Richard A. Kerr who said: “‘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. Which confirms Walt Brown's conclusion that “'Growing a planet' by many small collisions will produce an almost nonspinning planet, because spins imparted by impacts will be largely self-canceling."c
2. How much simpler can I make it. You have the famous lists. Pick any one & match it up to one of them.
3. As I said it is not my task to search for the non-existent evidence. It is your claim that it is true. It is up to you to prove it, and every time you fail to do so increases the evidence that you cannot.
Also, remember I said to provide the particular item - not just the name of a publication.
Walt Brown does not cite the details, therefore you are at a total loss because he is your one & only source of misinformation.
Okay, let's pick Richard A. Kerr who said: “‘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. Which confirms Walt Brown's conclusion that “'Growing a planet' by many small collisions will produce an almost nonspinning planet, because spins imparted by impacts will be largely self-canceling."c
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1488251 wrote: Okay, let's pick Richard A. Kerr who said: “‘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. Which confirms Walt Brown's conclusion that “'Growing a planet' by many small collisions will produce an almost nonspinning planet, because spins imparted by impacts will be largely self-canceling."c
You're so funny. That was actually Mr Kerr, a writer, quoting Dr Lissauer, and Dr Lissauer's statements in no way confirm anything that Walt Brown may have "concluded"
http://news.sciencemag.org/author/richard-.-kerr
I think that somewhere in the thread, I actually posted Mr Kerr's article from which this was extracted.
I could do it again, if you like.
You're so funny. That was actually Mr Kerr, a writer, quoting Dr Lissauer, and Dr Lissauer's statements in no way confirm anything that Walt Brown may have "concluded"
http://news.sciencemag.org/author/richard-.-kerr
I think that somewhere in the thread, I actually posted Mr Kerr's article from which this was extracted.
I could do it again, if you like.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1488254 wrote: You're so funny. That was actually Mr Kerr, a writer, quoting Dr Lissauer, and Dr Lissauer's statements in no way confirm anything that Walt Brown may have "concluded"
Richard A. Kerr | Science/AAAS | News
I think that somewhere in the thread, I actually posted Mr Kerr's article from which this was extracted.
I could do it again, if you like.
Okay.
Richard A. Kerr | Science/AAAS | News
I think that somewhere in the thread, I actually posted Mr Kerr's article from which this was extracted.
I could do it again, if you like.
Okay.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1488256 wrote: Okay.
OK, but first, please find and post the scientific publication which shows that Walt Brown gets credit for the conclusion that “'Growing a planet' by many small collisions will produce an almost non-spinning planet, because spins imparted by impacts will be largely self-canceling."
Surely the conclusions of such an esteemed scientist are published within the community.
OK, but first, please find and post the scientific publication which shows that Walt Brown gets credit for the conclusion that “'Growing a planet' by many small collisions will produce an almost non-spinning planet, because spins imparted by impacts will be largely self-canceling."
Surely the conclusions of such an esteemed scientist are published within the community.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
I suppose it could be - if the impacting objects were consistently from the same direction, as the same angle - as with a water wheel. However, as we are all (well, nearly all - with the exception of Pahu) aware, impacting objects do not consistently come from the same direction or angle.
Science Disproves Evolution
Mr Kerr's closing on the article says a lot.
But Lissauer says that for the time being
the choice of scenarios is "a matter of taste."
And the theories offered by the opposing
teams of spin doctors, he says, may not be as
different as they sound. "The big impacts
don't necessarily destroy the systematic component"
of spin acquired from many smaller
impacts, says Lissauer. Even the giant impactors
could have tended to strike a growing
planet with the slight prograde bias that he
suggests for smaller planetesimals, "so even if
Earth's [progradel rotation were due to a giant
impact, it doesn't mean it was purely
random." Given these almost philosophical
disagreements, perhaps Anthony Dobrovolskis
of NASA's Ames Research Center at
Moffett Field, California, has it right: I'm
inclined to think they both have hold of the
truth from different ends. - Richard A. Kerr -
SCIENCE * VOL. 258 * 23 OCTOBER 1992
But Lissauer says that for the time being
the choice of scenarios is "a matter of taste."
And the theories offered by the opposing
teams of spin doctors, he says, may not be as
different as they sound. "The big impacts
don't necessarily destroy the systematic component"
of spin acquired from many smaller
impacts, says Lissauer. Even the giant impactors
could have tended to strike a growing
planet with the slight prograde bias that he
suggests for smaller planetesimals, "so even if
Earth's [progradel rotation were due to a giant
impact, it doesn't mean it was purely
random." Given these almost philosophical
disagreements, perhaps Anthony Dobrovolskis
of NASA's Ames Research Center at
Moffett Field, California, has it right: I'm
inclined to think they both have hold of the
truth from different ends. - Richard A. Kerr -
SCIENCE * VOL. 258 * 23 OCTOBER 1992
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Star Births? Stellar Evolution? 2
¨If stars evolve, star births should about equal star deaths. Within our Milky Way Galaxy alone, about one star dies each year and becomes an expanding cloud of gas and dust (b). The less frequent deaths deaths of more massive stars are much brighter, more violent explosions called supernovas. Star births, on the other hand, would appear as new starlight not present on the many photographic plates made decades earlier. Instruments which could detect dust falling into and forming supposedly new stars have not done so (c). Actually, stars that some astronomers believe are very new are expelling matter. We have seen hundreds of stars die, but we have never seen a star born (d).
b. These explosions were misnamed “planetary nebula, because early astronomers with evolutionary ideas thought these clouds were forming planets around new stars. [See Bruce Balick and Adam Frank, “The Extraordinary Deaths of Ordinary Stars, Scientific American, Vol. 291, July 2004, pp. 50–59.]
“Herschel...speculated they might be planetary systems taking shape around young stars. The name stuck even though the opposite turned out to be true; this type of nebula consists of gas molted from dying stars. ... [Planetary nebula] pose challenges to stellar evolution theory, the physics that describes the life story of stars. Ibid., p. 52.
c. “... no one has unambiguously observed material falling onto an embryonic star, which should be happening if the star is truly still forming. And no one has caught a molecular cloud in the act of collapsing. Ivars Peterson, “The Winds of Starbirth, Science News, Vol. 137, 30 June 1990, p. 409.
“Precisely how a section of an interstellar cloud collapses gravitationally into a star—a double or multiple star, or a solar system—is still a challenging theoretical problem. ... Astronomers have yet to find an interstellar cloud in the actual process of collapse. Fred L. Whipple, The Mystery of Comets (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1985), pp. 211–212, 213.
d. “Yet astronomers have never witnessed [even] a high-mass star being born, and hotly debate how they form. Eric Hand, “Mega-Array Reveals Birthplace of Giant Stars,Nature,Vol 492, 20/27 December 2012, p. 320.
This 1.4 billion dollar mega-array is being builtin hopes ofseeing a star being born. The birth of high-mass stars would be the easiest to see. So far, no births have been seen.
“The origin of stars represents one of the most fundamental unsolved problems of contemporary astrophysics. Charles J. Lada and Frank H. Shu, “The Formation of Sunlike Stars,Science,
Vol. 248, 4 May 1990, p. 564.
“Most disturbing, however, is the fact that, despite numerous efforts, we have yet to directly observe the process of stellar formation. We have not yet been able to unambiguously detect the collapse of a molecular cloud core or the infall of circumstellar material onto an embryonic star. Until such an observation is made, it would probably be prudent to regard our current hypotheses and theoretical scenarios with some degree of suspicion. Ibid., p. 572.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
All very interesting, but exactly what to you think any of those statements and speculations prove, or disprove?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1488315 wrote: All very interesting, but exactly what to you think any of those statements and speculations prove, or disprove?
All my posts disprove evolution and prove creation.
All my posts disprove evolution and prove creation.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1488317 wrote: All my posts disprove evolution and prove creation.
Perhaps you see it that way.
All your posts really prove is that a lot of scientific minds are engaging in some pretty amazing conversations, and you only seem to see bits and bites of it all.
Nothing you have posted proves anything. Nor does it disprove anything.
I have looked up a number of the articles to which your posts refer, and found some very wonderful reading. For that I thank you. Wish you could enjoy it all, as well.
Perhaps you see it that way.
All your posts really prove is that a lot of scientific minds are engaging in some pretty amazing conversations, and you only seem to see bits and bites of it all.
Nothing you have posted proves anything. Nor does it disprove anything.
I have looked up a number of the articles to which your posts refer, and found some very wonderful reading. For that I thank you. Wish you could enjoy it all, as well.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
You still haven't answered the challenge - and true to form you paste something totally unrelated hoping, in vain, that we will forget about the fact that you are unable to come up with anything to back up the claims.
As for your claims that everything you post disproves evolution & proves creation - in actual fact, the opposite is true. The more garbage you post the more you support the argument for evolution. You have a very limited source - i.e. a single source based on a single unfounded hypothesis, denying the existence of countless sources of hard evidence which prove the existence of evolution. By this very denial of the evidence you are demonstrating the lack of scientific foundation with the hypothesis which is "If it doesn't back up the hypothesis, then it doesn't exist".
And so your small mind doesn't forget the beginning of this post...
You still haven't answered the challenge - and true to form you paste something totally unrelated hoping, in vain, that we will forget about the fact that you are unable to come up with anything to back up the claims.
As for your claims that everything you post disproves evolution & proves creation - in actual fact, the opposite is true. The more garbage you post the more you support the argument for evolution. You have a very limited source - i.e. a single source based on a single unfounded hypothesis, denying the existence of countless sources of hard evidence which prove the existence of evolution. By this very denial of the evidence you are demonstrating the lack of scientific foundation with the hypothesis which is "If it doesn't back up the hypothesis, then it doesn't exist".
And so your small mind doesn't forget the beginning of this post...
You still haven't answered the challenge - and true to form you paste something totally unrelated hoping, in vain, that we will forget about the fact that you are unable to come up with anything to back up the claims.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1488349 wrote:
As for your claims that everything you post disproves evolution & proves creation - in actual fact, the opposite is true. The more garbage you post the more you support the argument for evolution. You have a very limited source - i.e. a single source based on a single unfounded hypothesis, denying the existence of countless sources of hard evidence which prove the existence of evolution.
Where are those of countless sources of hard evidence which prove the existence of evolution?
As for your claims that everything you post disproves evolution & proves creation - in actual fact, the opposite is true. The more garbage you post the more you support the argument for evolution. You have a very limited source - i.e. a single source based on a single unfounded hypothesis, denying the existence of countless sources of hard evidence which prove the existence of evolution.
Where are those of countless sources of hard evidence which prove the existence of evolution?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.