Comets/Global Flood explained

[Oafman]

is this a wind up?

 

[HisMan]

Then you are adding to what the Bible says and assuming that what you consider to be very good is what God also considers very good.

Walt Brown's theory does not account for the massive amount of heat from friction that would occur if the tectonic plates moved that quickly. Most geologists place this oversight of Brown's in the category of Epic Fail. What does this even mean? The Earth's continents are not all moving toward the Pacific. Antarctica is extremely stationary.
And you know this, how? Are you a geologist professional? Strangely, the real geologists in the scientific community disagree with Walt Brown, so how is it you can make the claim that his explanation is better than theirs?

Why does that matter? You won't accept the conclusions of PHD cosmologists, geologists and physicists and instead defer to a man who has a doctorate in Mechanical Engineering yet doesn't know to account for heat due to friction when moving billions of tons of rock at speeds approaching 3 miles per second (10,800 mph). Now, suppose that heat went into the water squirting out. That water would turn to steam and cook Noah and the animals. I guess thermodynamics was not Walt Brown's strong suit.

References please.

I have and I don't find it credible. More importantly, scientists in the relevant fields of study find it completely flawed and amateurish.

Yeah, that's it; I'm "adding to the Bible." How stupid am I to actually apply basic logic to anything I read. Great rebuttal.

And you won't "accept the conclusions" of a PhD who has dozens of predictions that have been proven correct.

It's easy to find flaws with any theory and Brown has a complete scenario spelled out very well regarding heat distribution. And if you're going to tell me there aren't also massive problems with competing theories then you just haven't been paying attention. One problem with plate tectonics that not only Brown brings up but is referred to more and more by physicists is that 10 miles of rock just can't magically dive under another 10 miles. [Some have said up to 30 miles and I don't know where they get that figure.] But if you think that because I'm not a "geology professional" that I can't understand the first thing then why are you talking to me?

What are you going to say if they do indeed find microbes on that comet in the next month or so? That they "evolved there?"

 

[HisMan]

HisMan

I am not going to go into all of this but we need to look at some of what you feel are assumptions on the part of science.



Starting, the Big Bang is not an assumption but a conclusion arrived after quite a bit of controversy. It was not until confirming evidence was found that the Big Bang model was settled on. No assumptions involved.

Next the belief that natural forces worked to create life and all we observe. It is only an assumption when actively doing science. Since there is no empirical evidence for the existence of a God (although it is my religious belief that he exists) science cannot deal with it. So for the purposes of doing science, only natural processes are considered. It is not an assumption but simply a way of working. When evidence for a deity is found then it will be involved in the research. Right now, only natural processes have been discovered and no limits on them have been found that would indicate looking at the supernatural for explanations.

Science does not rule out the possibility of a deity being involved but so far natural processes have been adequate to explain what we find. I wish this were not the case as it would make faith a lot easier but we have to work with the world as we find it. It is God's work after all and we have to take it as he gave it to us.


So your starting point is not accurate. The points you listed are not assumptions. If you approach them as assumptions you will quickly get off track.

One of the best ways to deal with things like this, or at least I have found, is to be able to accurately explain both sides of the issue in your own words. If you can't do this you don't know enough to make judgements.

You seem to be making some effort to do this and I applaud you for this but you seem to be limiting yourself to sources that you agree with. That is not the best way do to this. Many of the questions you ask could be addressed with some simple basic research. The magnetic field issue is a good example.

Keep on plugging, this is some fascinating stuff and there is a lot of good things to learn.

Dizredux

Well, you can call it a conclusion or Micky Mouse if you want the fact is that it's a theory based on evidences and not on what has been observed. As with all forensic type evidences theories are based on assumptions made. Further, not only does the big bang break the basic laws of science but there's massive volumes of evidence against it and thousands of PhD's have written extensively on that. Further yet, there is now evidence that the universe isn't expanding after all. Again, I can't provide links but google Sci-News and find "Universe not expanding after all."

I have no problem with the fact that science has to be based on physical, observable evidences. To imply that we can't draw logical conclusions from what we observe (exactly like you do above with the big bang, BTW) is just not credible.

 

[florida2]

The Global Flood was much more that just water rising. It was a massive upheaval of the earth and created many features on the earth for which secular science has no answer such as the 40,000 mile long mid-oceanic ridge, miles of sedimentary layers laid down in almost perfectly flat layers with no erosion or plant growth between these layers, and so on. When the fountains of the great deep burst forth (creating the 40,000 mile ocean ridges) it launched a massive amount of material and water into space creating what we now call comets, asteroids and meteors. God did not create a world with deadly space objects, a moon with massive impact craters nor dust and microbes that pollute outer space. That would hardly be, as God said, “very good.”

The study and explanation for this can be found in Dr. Walt Browns fascinating book “In the Beginning.” A scientific theory gains powerful validation when it correctly predicts future findings (as Einstein’s theories have). Dr. Brown has over 50 predictions, some made as far back as 40 years ago, of which several dozen have now been proven to be correct and which are also exactly opposite of what secular scientists had expected. Concerning meteors and such for example, Brown predicted, that since they came from the earth, they would contain water and microbial materials. Water has now been found on asteroids and there’s many examples of microbes being found in space. In just a few days, on Nov. 11th, the European Space Agency will land probes on a comet capable of detecting microbes and chemicals produced by living organisms. It is very likely they will find such evidences which would be further, massive verification of Brown’s theories and a global flood.

Other people have addressed most of the points but I'll add another.

No microbes have been discovered in space or on any celestial bodies. If they had it would be the biggest story in the history of science IMO.

Plenty of organic molecules have been discovered in space - not just asteroids but in nebulas many lightyears away. Organic molecules do not necessarily have anything to do with life. In chemistry the term 'organic' simply means that the molecule contains carbon.

 

[HisMan]

Other people have addressed most of the points but I'll add another.

No microbes have been discovered in space or on any celestial bodies. If they had it would be the biggest story in the history of science IMO.

Plenty of organic molecules have been discovered in space - not just asteroids but in nebulas many lightyears away. Organic molecules do not necessarily have anything to do with life. In chemistry the term 'organic' simply means that the molecule contains carbon.

So the sea plankton found on the International Space Station by Russian scientists must not exist? [The Guardian; article Sea Plankton Found on ISS] There's also been strong evidence of bacteria found in meteorites (not the Mars rocks) [Science Direct; article Bacteria in the Tatahouine meteorite: nanometric-scale life in rocks]. The Journal of Cosmology, 2011, Vol 13, in the article titled "Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites" not only says that numerous samples have been found in meteorites but that combined with samples collected for other sources it concludes that there is a large volume of biologic material in space; "This finding has direct implications to the distribution of life in the Cosmos and the possibility of microbial life in liquid water regimes of cometary nuclei as they travel within the orbit of Mars and in icy moons with liquid water oceans such as Europa and Enceladus." Another article from the Journal of Cosmology, 2013, Vol. 22, pp 10183-10188 as well as other studies have concluded that from the considerable amount of biologic material collected by high altitude balloons then such material had to come from space.

And I could go on for pages and pages about this. One paper I read but can't find right now says that life must have evolved on comets. That is the length evolutionists are willing to go to in order to deny God. The fact is that Walt Brown was right and the mass of biological materials found in space proves it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Other people have addressed most of the points but I'll add another.

No microbes have been discovered in space or on any celestial bodies. If they had it would be the biggest story in the history of science IMO.

Plenty of organic molecules have been discovered in space - not just asteroids but in nebulas many lightyears away. Organic molecules do not necessarily have anything to do with life. In chemistry the term 'organic' simply means that the molecule contains carbon.

Potential ancient fossils of simple life forms have been found on Mars. Whether they are or not is still subject to debate, but it is worth noting.

Since when does anything in regards to carbon and the molecules it forms not pertain to life?

 

[Dizredux]

Well, you can call it a conclusion or Micky Mouse if you want the fact is that it's a theory based on evidences and not on what has been observed.

Oh my! This sentence makes no sense whatsoever and I cannot find a way to parse it to where it could.

As with all forensic type evidences theories are based on assumptions made.

I am not sure what you mean by assumption. Could you clarify a little and maybe bring up some of the assumptions you are talking about?

Further, not only does the big bang break the basic laws of science but there's massive volumes of evidence against it and thousands of PhD's have written extensively on that.

You might want to inform cosmologists about this as they seem to be blissfully unaware of the "massive" volumes of evidence against the Big Bang.

Further yet, there is now evidence that the universe isn't expanding after all. Again, I can't provide links but google Sci-News and find "Universe not expanding after all."

I am sorry but "I know the scientific world is quite wrong but I have no way to support the idea. Doesn't matter though, I know I am right and that is it." just doesn't cut it.

This may be the article you are bringing up.
Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests | Astronomy | Sci-News.com

Did you read and understand the article or just find something that might agree with you and accepted it uncritically? The best I can tell, it is just reporting some interesting findings and speculating on what they might mean.

I have no problem with the fact that science has to be based on physical, observable evidences. To imply that we can't draw logical conclusions from what we observe (exactly like you do above with the big bang, BTW) is just not credible.

Say what? How does this connect with what I wrote about the Big Bang. I wrote one sentence on the subject

Starting, the Big Bang is not an assumption but a conclusion arrived after quite a bit of controversy. It was not until confirming evidence was found that the Big Bang model was settled on. No assumptions involved.

Your are just not making much sense. Might I suggest you reread your posts and think a bit before actually posting.


Dizredux

 

[DerelictJunction]

Yeah, that's it; I'm "adding to the Bible." How stupid am I to actually apply basic logic to anything I read. Great rebuttal.

Okay. Let's use logic. If God allows you to get cancer and suffer through the surgery and chemotherapy, would you think it was "very good" from your point of view? Would you think that God allowed you to get cancer because He considered it to not be "very good"?

And you won't "accept the conclusions" of a PhD who has dozens of predictions that have been proven correct.

Not when those conclusions come from a mechanical engineer and contradict the consensus conclusions of thousands of PhD scientists who spent their lives studying the Earth's geophysical makeup. If you're going to accept his PhD and use the argument from authority, I have more PhD's on my side so I must be right.

It's easy to find flaws with any theory and Brown has a complete scenario spelled out very well regarding heat distribution. And if you're going to tell me there aren't also massive problems with competing theories then you just haven't been paying attention. One problem with plate tectonics that not only Brown brings up but is referred to more and more by physicists is that 10 miles of rock just can't magically dive under another 10 miles. [Some have said up to 30 miles and I don't know where they get that figure.]

References please.

But if you think that because I'm not a "geology professional" that I can't understand the first thing then why are you talking to me?

What I think is that you are accepting the assertions made on a YEC website and those made in Dr. Brown's book without questioning the obvious. Why do their conclusions differ so greatly from the conclusions drawn by the scientists who have studied the Earth's geology all of their lives?

What are you going to say if they do indeed find microbes on that comet in the next month or so? That they "evolved there?"

What are you going to say if they don't?

 

[HisMan]

Oh my! This sentence makes no sense whatsoever and I cannot find a way to parse it to where it could.

I am sorry but "I know the scientific world is quite wrong but I have no way to support the idea. Doesn't matter though, I know I am right and that is it." just doesn't cut it.

This may be the article you are bringing up.
Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests

Did you read and understand the article or just find something that might agree with you and accepted it uncritically? The best I can tell, it is just reporting some interesting findings and speculating on what they might mean.

Your are just not making much sense. Might I suggest you reread your posts and think a bit before actually posting.


Dizredux

My first sentence was indeed poorly written. Of course theories are based on what is observed. What I meant is that present observations are formed to make theories about the past.

"I am not sure what you mean by assumption. Could you clarify a little and maybe bring up some of the assumptions you are talking about?"

Your kidding, right? You can't figure out this one on your own?????

" You might want to inform cosmologists about this as they seem to be blissfully unaware of the "massive" volumes of evidence against the Big Bang."

You might want to inform yourself. I care not what the "consensus" is at the moment or that most agree with you. It's massively obvious to me that no matter what the evidence evolutionists will always find an out.

And just like in the article they will, of course, always insert their evolutionary biases. I get the exact same from evolutionists every time: "Yeah, the did admit that but they still believe in evolution." There's also been much written on problems with the entire observations regarding red shift.

"Say what? How does this connect with what I wrote about the Big Bang. I wrote one sentence on the subject"

Speaking of reading you might want to read your own post: "Since there is no empirical evidence for the existence of a God (although it is my religious belief that he exists) science cannot deal with it. So for the purposes of doing science, only natural processes are considered. It is not an assumption but simply a way of working. When evidence for a deity is found then it will be involved in the research. Right now, only natural processes have been discovered and no limits on them have been found that would indicate looking at the supernatural for explanations.

Science does not rule out the possibility of a deity being involved but so far natural processes have been adequate to explain what we find. I wish this were not the case as it would make faith a lot easier but we have to work with the world as we find it. It is God's work after all and we have to take it as he gave it to us."

And tone your insults down, too. If you want to have a conversation learn to be civil.

 

[HitchSlap]

And tone your insults down, too. If you want to have a conversation learn to be civil.

Oh, the ironing.

 

[Dizredux]

My first sentence was indeed poorly written. Of course theories are based on what is observed. What I meant is that present observations are formed to make theories about the past.

OK but I am not sure I am understand what point you are trying to address.

Diz

I am not sure what you mean by assumption. Could you clarify a little and maybe bring up some of the assumptions you are talking about?

HM

Your kidding, right? You can't figure out this one on your own?????

I was asking about what you mean by assumption. You use the word but right now, I don't have a clue about what you mean.

Diz

You might want to inform cosmologists about this as they seem to be blissfully unaware of the "massive" volumes of evidence against the Big Bang."

HM

You might want to inform yourself. I care not what the "consensus" is at the moment or that most agree with you. It's massively obvious to me that no matter what the evidence evolutionists will always find an out.

I guess that since your are right and have no doubt, what the consensus of cosmologists think is indeed irrelevant to you.

And just like in the article they will, of course, always insert their evolutionary biases. I get the exact same from evolutionists every time: "Yeah, the did admit that but they still believe in evolution." There's also been much written on problems with the entire observations regarding red shift.

Evolutionary biases? Can you explain what you mean?. I do know that scientists are generally biased to what the evidence shows but am uncertain by what biases you are referring to.


Diz

"Say what? How does this connect with what I wrote about the Big Bang. I wrote one sentence on the subject"

HN

Speaking of reading you might want to read your own post:

Nice that you did not address my question but wondered off on a irrelevant tangent.



Diz

"Since there is no empirical evidence for the existence of a God (although it is my religious belief that he exists) science cannot deal with it. So for the purposes of doing science, only natural processes are considered. It is not an assumption but simply a way of working. When evidence for a deity is found then it will be involved in the research. Right now, only natural processes have been discovered and no limits on them have been found that would indicate looking at the supernatural for explanations.

Science does not rule out the possibility of a deity being involved but so far natural processes have been adequate to explain what we find. I wish this were not the case as it would make faith a lot easier but we have to work with the world as we find it. It is God's work after all and we have to take it as he gave it to us."

And what does this have to do with my single sentence on the Big Bang?

HM

And tone your insults down, too. If you want to have a conversation learn to be civil.

Now this is funny. Can you show me where I was insulting in this thread?

Rather sarcastic perhaps when it seems appropriate but usually not deliberately insulting. You on the other hand.....as HitchSlap said "Oh the ironing."




Dizredux

 

[florida2]

Potential ancient fossils of simple life forms have been found on Mars. Whether they are or not is still subject to debate, but it is worth noting.

Yes, there's been a lot of debate and more research but it is possible. I was merely pointing out that there has been no definitive discovery, unlike the OP was saying.

Since when does anything in regards to carbon and the molecules it forms not pertain to life?

I was pointing out that organic molecules are not necessarily formed by life. I've seen some people on the internet go mad when it's announced that organic molecules have been discovered in space before it's pointed out that such carbon-containing molecules don't have to be formed by life.

 

[USincognito]

Concerning meteors and such for example, Brown predicted, that since they came from the earth...

Meteors don't come from earth.

a comet

Comets don't come from earth.

Do you have any other predictions that Brown made?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, there's been a lot of debate and more research but it is possible. I was merely pointing out that there has been no definitive discovery, unlike the OP was saying.



I was pointing out that organic molecules are not necessarily formed by life. I've seen some people on the internet go mad when it's announced that organic molecules have been discovered in space before it's pointed out that such carbon-containing molecules don't have to be formed by life.

Both points are fair. It actually used to be argued by more religious groups that such molecules could only be produced by living bodies (another way to try to make out life to be special, I suppose).

 

[HisMan]

Meteors don't come from earth.



Comets don't come from earth.

Do you have any other predictions that Brown made?

Did you read my response about the massive amount of microbial remains and even sea plankton found in space? Not sure of your ideology but unless you believe it evolved somewhere "out there" what other explanation is there?

Brown predicted Carbon 14 would be found in dinosaur bones--proven correct.
That earthquakes would move the earth's plates towards the Pacific--correct.
Pools or water would be found under mountain ranges---correct.
Moons (small asteroids) around some comets---correct.
No fossils will be found below Mammoths---so far correct.
Water will be found in large asteroids---correct.
Little radioactive material will be found of the moon or Mars--so far correct.
And all of this is exactly the opposite of secular/evolutionary predictions.

He also has a relatively new theory about the origin of earth's radioactivity. It turns out that the friction in quarts rocks during earthquakes produce underground lightning. This is turn will bombard a certain amount of rock with neutrons which is how materials become radioactive. Brown believes that the Flood caused massive upheaval and earthquakes so radioactive material was produced at that time. If so, the vast majority of radioactive elements should be at shallow depths and not found more towards the earth's core.

 

[lasthero]

Sweitzer’s find made big news but soft tissue finds actually go back to the ’60.

Never heard of that. Can you link to some papers detailing this? Give me a name?

After Sweitzer paleontologists started doing something I’d think a first grader should have figured out 100 years ago---they cut bones open to look inside.

I'm not a paleotologist, but my understanding is that they don't need to. Fossilization isn't a perfect process, and most bones found aren't intact. There's not need to cut them open regularly because many of them are already cut open.

Organic material found in 530 myo worms was reported in the Journal of Paleontology 88(2):224-239. 2014 Microstructure and Biogeochemistry of the Organically Preserved Ediacaran Metazoan Sabellidites

Couldn't find a word on it. Can you quote from it?

Other than volcanic eruptions, the vast majority of layers are laid down by flowing water and all scientists agree that the gigantic formations I referred to are that type of sediment.

Really? ALL scientists agree? I don't suppose you're going to support that clam, are you?

And yes, of course there are breaks in these layers such as in the Grand Canyon but there are thousands of square miles between hundreds of layers where there is no evidence of erosion or plant growth. In fact, quite the opposite as there are millions of animal tracks obviously made when these layers were wet/soft and before they could be eroded they were preserved by another layer deposited on top. Additionally, there are tens of millions multi-strata fossils.

Those are some nice claims you have there, but a source would be nice. I'd particularly love to see where you have evidence for 'tens of millions' of multi-strata fossils.

So a person would have to be totally pig headed to not admit there’s no other explanation than intelligent design.

Provide some evidence for it, then we'll talk.

I find it beyond belief that evolutionist desperately search radio waves (with MY tax dollars via the SETI programs) and would “know for a fact” that even the most simple code would have had to come from an intelligent source.

I like how you put that bit in quotation marks, even though you're not actually quoting anyone. Because no one said that.

Oh, and yeah, tax dollars occasionally go to things you don't like. Welcome to life. Sorry.

But then they look not only at the massive complexity of life but also the fact that there are millions of examples where all structures have to be in place and have complete functionality in order to even exist but then deny an intelligent designer.

I'd like to see your list of millions.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Organic material found in 530 myo worms was reported in the Journal of Paleontology 88(2):224-239. 2014 Microstructure and Biogeochemistry of the Organically Preserved Ediacaran Metazoan Sabellidites

Note that the article says "Organically preserved". This means that organs from the soft-bodied organisms were fossilised. It does NOT mean that organic material was found.

 

[freezerman2000]

HM
"That earthquakes would move the earth's plates towards the Pacific--correct."
FM
Incorrect.
The mid ocean ridge in the Atlantic is an upwelling..pushing the American plate further away from the European plate.
The mid ocean trench(of which the Marianas trench is part of)is a subduction zone..recycling old plate material,pulling the Asian plate closer to the American plate.
Earth quakes occur along fault lines,some thousands of miles away from the ridge and the trench and have nothing to do with the continents being pulled together...
At least learn some basic geography and earth sciences(how the earth works).

 

[Split Rock]

The Global Flood was much more that just water rising. It was a massive upheaval of the earth

That left no evidence in the geological column? ( see: History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth)

and created many features on the earth for which secular science has no answer such as the 40,000 mile long mid-oceanic ridge,

The mid-oceanic ridges are created via tectonic processes, in particular ocean floor spreading.

miles of sedimentary layers laid down in almost perfectly flat layers with no erosion or plant growth between these layers, and so on.

I'm sure there are some examples of this, as we know that local flooding occurs. There are also many more examples where there is erosion between layers and other types of unconformities. How do you explain those? Unconformities

When the fountains of the great deep burst forth (creating the 40,000 mile ocean ridges) it launched a massive amount of material and water into space creating what we now call comets, asteroids and meteors.

Really? Do you have any concept of the distance between earth and the asteroid belt... or the Kuiper belt ?

God did not create a world with deadly space objects, a moon with massive impact craters nor dust and microbes that pollute outer space. That would hardly be, as God said, “very good.”

Now you are telling God what he should claim is "very good?"

 

[Delphiki]

So the sea plankton found on the International Space Station by Russian scientists must not exist?

A thing in space made on earth which has unconfirmed claims of microbes and other things from earth on it? Oh, that's totally a miracle.