PDA

View Full Version : Evolution From Space



bob b
March 20th, 2006, 03:57 PM
Has Earth spread life in the Solar System ?

Earthly bacteria could have reached distant planets and moons after being flung into space by massive meteorite impacts, scientists suggest. The proposal neatly reverses the panspermia theory, which suggests that life on Earth was seeded by microbes on comets or meteorites from elsewhere. Both theories envision life spreading through the Solar System in much the same way that germs race around a crowded classroom, says Jeff Moore, a planetary scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California. "Once one planet comes down with life, they all get it."Impacts on Mars and the Moon are known to throw rocks into space that end up on Earth as small meteorites. But spraying Earth rocks towards the edges of the Solar System is more difficult, because the material has to move away from the Sun's strong gravity.To find out just how many rocks could reach the outer Solar System, a team of scientists used a computer model to track millions of fragments ejected by a simulated massive impact, such as the one that created the Chicxulub crater some 65 million years ago.

Similar sized events are thought to have happened a few times in Earth's history.The researchers looked in part at how many Earthly fragments would reach environments thought to be relatively well suited to life, such as Saturn's moon Titan and Jupiter's moon Europa. "I assumed the answer would be very, very few," says Brett Gladman, a planetary scientist at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, who led the team. But Gladman was surprised to find that within 5 million years, about 100 objects would hit Europa, while Titan gets roughly 30 hits. He presented the results at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in League City, Texas, on 16 March.

Knight
March 20th, 2006, 04:08 PM
Has Earth spread life in the Solar System ?

Earthly bacteria could have reached distant planets and moons after being flung into space by massive meteorite impacts, scientists suggest. Or... shot into space from the fountains (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html#wp1011388) of the deep.

Also see... Comets (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets.html).

Jukia
March 20th, 2006, 05:08 PM
Or... shot into space from the fountains (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html#wp1011388) of the deep.

Also see... Comets (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets.html).

Ah, so you listened to Pastor Enyart's show the other day or did you come to this belief on your own?

Lord Vader
March 20th, 2006, 05:36 PM
Or... shot into space from the fountains (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html#wp1011388) of the deep.

Also see... Comets (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets.html).

Interesting web site. What's your take on it?

Knight
March 20th, 2006, 05:57 PM
Interesting web site. What's your take on it?I am a huge Walt Brown fan. :up:

I really recommend buying the book. The whole thing is online on the website but it's so much easier to read in hardcover. It's really worth it.

Knight
March 20th, 2006, 06:01 PM
Ah, so you listened to Pastor Enyart's show the other day or did you come to this belief on your own?I normally don't do this but..... I must take credit for Bob promoting Walt Brown.

I tried for TWO YEARS to get Bob to read Walt's book. Bob didn't want to because he was busy and I think he didn't want to let go of the canopy theory but I knew if Bob read the book he would like it.

Jukia
March 20th, 2006, 06:03 PM
I normally don't do this but..... I must take credit for Bob promoting Walt Brown.

I tried for TWO YEARS to get Bob to read Walt's book. Bob didn't want to because he was busy and I think he didn't want to let go of the canopy theory but I knew if Bob read the book he would like it.

And you really buy this theory, huh? I gotta say that it clearly goes against every bit of geology and marine science that I ever read or learned. It sounds like such nonsense.

Knight
March 20th, 2006, 06:04 PM
And you really buy this theory, huh? I gotta say that it clearly goes against every bit of geology and marine science that I ever read or learned. It sounds like such nonsense.I have more trust in Walt Brown than I do you.

No offense. :)

Jukia
March 20th, 2006, 06:10 PM
I have more trust in Walt Brown than I do you.

No offense. :)

That's OK, no offense taken. I have more trust in myself than I do in Brown's theory.

Knight
March 20th, 2006, 06:21 PM
That's OK, no offense taken. I have more trust in myself than I do in Brown's theory.We're all happy then! :D

Lord Vader
March 20th, 2006, 06:39 PM
I am a huge Walt Brown fan. :up:

I really recommend buying the book. The whole thing is online on the website but it's so much easier to read in hardcover. It's really worth it.

Is it the one that says the Earths crust rests, or rested, upon water without any other support?

bob b
March 20th, 2006, 07:30 PM
Is it the one that says the Earths crust rests, or rested, upon water without any other support?

You obviously never read the book.

Knight
March 20th, 2006, 07:31 PM
Is it the one that says the Earths crust rests, or rested, upon water without any other support?No.

Lord Vader
March 20th, 2006, 07:38 PM
Oh, well is it the one that proposes that flood waters came from a layer of water about ten miles under ground?

One Eyed Jack
March 20th, 2006, 08:32 PM
I'm more interested in hearing about the one that says the Earth's crust rested on water without any other support. What's the name of that book?

Stripe
March 21st, 2006, 09:25 AM
Interesting web site. What's your take on it?

crackles me... thats a compelling read ...

Knight
March 21st, 2006, 10:24 AM
I'm more interested in hearing about the one that says the Earth's crust rested on water without any other support. What's the name of that book?In The Beginning (http://www.creationscience.com).

Yorzhik
March 21st, 2006, 10:45 AM
Although, I think Walt Brown is the one that says the Mammoths (and a plethora of other creatures) were insta-frozen at the same event. I think on that point he is wrong because I'm pretty sure there is a great amount of water-born sediment that the Mammoths rest on which would not be the case if Dr. Brown's theory is correct about the freezing of the Mammoths.

Jukia
March 21st, 2006, 10:47 AM
Although, I think Walt Brown is the one that says the Mammoths (and a plethora of other creatures) were insta-frozen at the same event. I think on that point he is wrong because I'm pretty sure there is a great amount of water-born sediment that the Mammoths rest on which would not be the case if Dr. Brown's theory is correct about the freezing of the Mammoths.
I suspect he is wrong on most points.

Knight
March 21st, 2006, 10:47 AM
Although, I think Walt Brown is the one that says the Mammoths (and a plethora of other creatures) were insta-frozen at the same event. I think on that point he is wrong because I'm pretty sure there is a great amount of water-born sediment that the Mammoths rest on which would not be the case if Dr. Brown's theory is correct about the freezing of the Mammoths.OK... but we have frozen Mammoths that appear to be frozen within in seconds.

The physical evidence exists.

Yorzhik
March 21st, 2006, 11:55 AM
OK... but we have frozen Mammoths that appear to be frozen within in seconds.

The physical evidence exists.
I think the evidence clearly exists one way or the other, but getting the information is like pulling eye teeth. I wish there were a Mammoth expert that we could ask some simple questions to. Like the scientists that are actually working on that one they pulled out of the permafrost as a block of ice.

Knight
March 21st, 2006, 11:58 AM
I think the evidence clearly exists one way or the other, but getting the information is like pulling eye teeth. I wish there were a Mammoth expert that we could ask some simple questions to. Like the scientists that are actually working on that one they pulled out of the permafrost as a block of ice.Did you read the entire chapter (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FrozenMammoths2.html#wp1015632) on frozen Mammoths?

Knight
March 21st, 2006, 12:00 PM
The map (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FrozenMammoths3.html) is pretty interesting.

Yorzhik
March 21st, 2006, 12:05 PM
Did you read the entire chapter (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FrozenMammoths2.html#wp1015632) on frozen Mammoths?
Yes, long before now, and again for this thread.

Yorzhik
March 21st, 2006, 12:13 PM
The map (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FrozenMammoths3.html) is pretty interesting.
It is.

Lord Vader
March 21st, 2006, 05:25 PM
It reminds me of those contests where you try to sound like a famous author, like "imitate Marcel Proust competition" or "imitate Ernest Hemingway competition" only in this case it's, "imitate the writing style of scientists". You just have to affect a pedantic writing style... but a person, well, some ppl., can tell the difference.

Yorzhik
March 23rd, 2006, 01:54 AM
I suspect he is wrong on most points.
You don't even know what we are talking about.

Jukia
March 23rd, 2006, 06:24 AM
You don't even know what we are talking about.

I thought this was about Walt Brown? If so my response is pretty simple. His theory is absurd. If not then let me know what I missed. Thanks

Yorzhik
March 23rd, 2006, 11:23 AM
I thought this was about Walt Brown? If so my response is pretty simple. His theory is absurd. If not then let me know what I missed. Thanks
What about his theory is absurd? Anything specific?

Jukia
March 23rd, 2006, 11:48 AM
What about his theory is absurd? Anything specific?

You can start with the fact that it is based on Noah's flood less than 6000 years ago. Hard to get past that when the rest of the scientific community looks at the evidence and believes otherwise.
And water under the earth suddenly gushing up?
Sorry, the guy is clearly wacked.
I must admit that I have not looked in detail at his site in some months but I think he also theorizes, as does Pastor E, that comets are the result of debris from this explosion of the fountains of the great deep. Total and absolute nonsense.

Knight
March 23rd, 2006, 05:50 PM
You can start with the fact that it is based on Noah's flood less than 6000 years ago. Hard to get past that when the rest of the scientific community looks at the evidence and believes otherwise.
And water under the earth suddenly gushing up?
Sorry, the guy is clearly wacked.
I must admit that I have not looked in detail at his site in some months but I think he also theorizes, as does Pastor E, that comets are the result of debris from this explosion of the fountains of the great deep. Total and absolute nonsense.All this coming from a guy who believes matter and energy created themselves and that whales evolved from cows which evolved from fish. :chuckle:

One Eyed Jack
March 23rd, 2006, 11:19 PM
In The Beginning (http://www.creationscience.com).

I thought you said that wasn't the book?



Is it the one that says the Earths crust rests, or rested, upon water without any other support?No.

Bob Enyart
March 23rd, 2006, 11:50 PM
I normally don't do this but..... I must take credit for Bob promoting Walt Brown.

I tried for TWO YEARS to get Bob to read Walt's book...

Yes, yes, Knight cornered me with his lance, Lion caught me by the scruff, and they wouldn't let me go unless I read Dr. Brown's book.

Needless to say, it was good medicine. If Henry Morris is the Copernicus of the modern Creation Science movement, Walt Brown is the Isaac Newton!

Thanks guys...

Er, a... thanks guy and a mammal.

-Bob

Bob Enyart
March 23rd, 2006, 11:55 PM
All this coming from a guy who believes matter and energy created themselves and that whales evolved from cows which evolved from fish. :chuckle:

:chuckle::chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle::chuckle:

Knight
March 23rd, 2006, 11:58 PM
Yes, yes, Knight cornered me with his lance, Lion caught me by the scruff, and they wouldn't let me go unless I read Dr. Brown's book.The funny thing is Lion was just as hesitant as Bob was to read Walt's book. Especially when I told Lion the general idea of the book.

Walt's book is similar to the Plot (http://www.kgov.com/store/detail/literature/theplot.html) in that if you tell folks too much about it they might be hesitant to read it because it might challenge their current view (a view that might have an investment behind it). Yet when they finally do read it they dance on the table and wish they had read it sooner. :bannana:

Jukia
March 24th, 2006, 06:30 AM
All this coming from a guy who believes matter and energy created themselves and that whales evolved from cows which evolved from fish. :chuckle:

And your comment from somone who seems to believe that God created the universe in 6 literal days about 6000 years ago and then set the whole thing up so it appears to have happened differently. Okey dokey

Jukia
March 24th, 2006, 06:35 AM
Yes, yes, Knight cornered me with his lance, Lion caught me by the scruff, and they wouldn't let me go unless I read Dr. Brown's book.

Needless to say, it was good medicine. If Henry Morris is the Copernicus of the modern Creation Science movement, Walt Brown is the Isaac Newton!

Thanks guys...

Er, a... thanks guy and a mammal.

-Bob

As I have suggested to others here before, you really need to learn some science.
Although as I read this post I suspect you may be right. Morris and Brown may be in the forefront of the "modern Creation Science movement" but I would suggest that the reason for capitalizing those words is to attempt to give them more importance and respect than they deserve. Creation Science is simply not science but an attempt to squeeze a literal interpretation of Genesis into the real world and unfortunatly it just does not fit. It is nonsense.
I also assume that I am the mammal referred to. Does that mean that you are not a mammal.
Thanks ever so much. And my guess is that you might find a good basic science class at a local community college

Jukia
March 24th, 2006, 06:55 AM
Again in the show from yesterday, good Pastor Bob cites a study in New Scientist (not sure I got the name right) positing that rocks from earth could have made it all the way to Jupiter. He then connects it with Brown's idea that the Flood shot rocks and debris off the earth and they became ther asteroids and comets. While he admits that the reported study has a different mechanism than Brown's my specific question is whether Brown's theory requires all asteroids and comets to have resulted from the mechanism that started the Flood.

Knight
March 24th, 2006, 10:44 AM
And your comment from somone who seems to believe that God created the universe in 6 literal days about 6000 years agoIndeed! There isn't anything impossible or illogical with my view like there is with your view.


and then set the whole thing up so it appears to have happened differently.Who says He set it up to "appears to have happened differently."?

The world looks just as it should based on the biblical account of world history.

Knight
March 24th, 2006, 10:46 AM
Again in the show from yesterday, good Pastor Bob cites a study in New Scientist (not sure I got the name right) positing that rocks from earth could have made it all the way to Jupiter. He then connects it with Brown's idea that the Flood shot rocks and debris off the earth and they became ther asteroids and comets. While he admits that the reported study has a different mechanism than Brown's my specific question is whether Brown's theory requires all asteroids and comets to have resulted from the mechanism that started the Flood.I have an idea.... call Bob's show and straighten him out!!!

M-F.... 5 to 6PM (eastern) 1-800-8Enyart.

Jukia
March 24th, 2006, 10:57 AM
Indeed! There isn't anything impossible or illogical with my view like there is with your view.

Who says He set it up to "appears to have happened differently."?

The world looks just as it should based on the biblical account of world history.

Really? then how comes the earth appears to be about 4 billion + years old? How come there is no evidence that leads one to believe there was a world wide flood 4000 or so years ago, well at least when one looks directly at the evidence and not at the evidence through Biblically colored glasses.

And how can you write your first sentence? Aren't you one of those who believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis? If so how can you believe anything other than 6 day literal creation???

Knight
March 24th, 2006, 11:02 AM
well at least when one looks directly at the evidence and not at the evidence through Biblically colored glasses.And you look at the evidence through materialistic colored glasses.

You are free to think whatever you wish.


And how can you write your first sentence? Aren't you one of those who believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis? If so how can you believe anything other than 6 day literal creation???I don't understand what you are saying.

Jukia
March 24th, 2006, 11:03 AM
Indeed! There isn't anything impossible or illogical with my view like there is with your view.

.


Ah, perhaps I misread this. But, if nothing is impossible with your view, is it not impossible, in your view that the earth could be 4+ billion years old?

bob b
March 24th, 2006, 11:07 AM
Really? then how comes the earth appears to be about 4 billion + years old?

Who says it does? (Only the ratio of two elements says this, plus an assumption that meteors were formed at the same time as the Earth).


How come there is no evidence that leads one to believe there was a world wide flood 4000 or so years ago,

Marine fossils on mountaintops plus gazillions of dead things buried in mud (sedimentary deposits) is good enough for me.

Jukia
March 24th, 2006, 11:07 AM
And you look at the evidence through materialistic colored glasses.

.

Actually, you have no clue what type of glasses I look at life through. On the other hand as best I can tell you do look at life through Biblically colored glassed.

Jukia
March 24th, 2006, 11:09 AM
Marine fossils on mountaintops plus gazillions of dead things buried in mud (sedimentary deposits) is good enough for me.

Glad to hear that. But your understanding of geology is clearly pretty bleak.

Are any of the items that you had a hand in designing during your engineering career still being sold?

Knight
March 24th, 2006, 11:17 AM
Ah, perhaps I misread this. But, if nothing is impossible with your view, is it not impossible, in your view that the earth could be 4+ billion years old?You are very hard to understand. :confused:

Knight
March 24th, 2006, 11:18 AM
Glad to hear that. But your understanding of geology is clearly pretty bleak.

Are any of the items that you had a hand in designing during your engineering career still being sold?If you are interested in discussing the topic and even strongly disagreeing great! But you are are intent on being nothing more than a rude jerk please take you act elsewhere or I will do it for you. :)

bob b
March 24th, 2006, 11:19 AM
Glad to hear that. But your understanding of geology is clearly pretty bleak.

Are any of the items that you had a hand in designing during your engineering career still being sold?

(Ignoring flea)

I see ThePhy is lurking here.

What is your "take" on the "functional protein rarity" situation?

Jukia
March 24th, 2006, 11:22 AM
You are very hard to understand. :confused:

Your understanding of the world is based on your belief that the earth is aobut 6000 years or so old and was created by God in 6 literal days, correct?
And that understanding is based on your belief that the Bible is inerrant, right down to the story of creation in Genesis, correct?

Knight
March 24th, 2006, 11:26 AM
Your understanding of the world is based on your belief that the earth is aobut 6000 years or so old and was created by God in 6 literal days, correct?
And that understanding is based on your belief that the Bible is inerrant, right down to the story of creation in Genesis, correct?The evidence that the earth wasn't billions of years old and that evolution was a lie were two of the main factors that lead me (as an atheist) to explore other avenues.

The substance of the evidence lead me to God.

Therefore, you have it exactly backwards when you attempt to define me.

eisenreich
March 24th, 2006, 11:30 AM
What is your "take" on the "functional protein rarity" situation?
Bob, did you write a post or cite a paper on "functional protein rarity"? If so, please direct me to it so I can get your take.

Jukia
March 24th, 2006, 11:34 AM
The evidence that the earth wasn't billions of years old and that evolution was a lie were two of the main factors that lead me (as an atheist) to explore other avenues.

The substance of the evidence lead me to God.

Therefore, you have it exactly backwards when you attempt to define me.

The statement that evolution is a "lie" is a bit strong and implies that those who support it are doing so with malice. If you wish to argue that the evidence relied upon for evolutionary theory is wrong then do so but your implication is that it is fabricated.

As far as the evidence that the earth is not billions of years old are you taking the position that the vast majority of the evidence of an old earth, old universe is....what? fabricated, misinterpreted, part of a great atheistic conspiracy?

While I can understand how one's life experiences can lead to a belief in God and even in the God of the Bible, that is a different path than the one you are suggesting. The evidence of a very very old earth is overwhelming unless you are willing to posit major changes in our understanding of physics etc.

Knight
March 24th, 2006, 11:40 AM
The statement that evolution is a "lie" is a bit strong and implies that those who support it are doing so with malice. If you wish to argue that the evidence relied upon for evolutionary theory is wrong then do so but your implication is that it is fabricated.Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

I believe that the creator God is evident to all men.

Those that reject Him do so knowing they are wrong deep down inside.

Knight
March 24th, 2006, 11:41 AM
Jukia... it seems you have "toned down" a bit. Thank you!

These topics are fun to discuss and even more fun to discuss if we can have a sense of fellowship. :up:

Jukia
March 24th, 2006, 11:51 AM
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

I believe that the creator God is evident to all men.

Those that reject Him do so knowing they are wrong deep down inside.

But you can get to evidence of God without having to believe in a 6 day creation. Or perhaps that is the crux of our dispute.

Knight
March 24th, 2006, 02:01 PM
But you can get to evidence of God without having to believe in a 6 day creation.That is true.

Personally I feel a young earth offers the most compelling evidence.

Some Christians disagree.

Jukia
March 24th, 2006, 03:33 PM
That is true.

Personally I feel a young earth offers the most compelling evidence.

Some Christians disagree.

What is your evidence other than perhaps anecdotal evidence of young lavas seeming old?

bob b
March 24th, 2006, 03:36 PM
What is your evidence other than perhaps anecdotal evidence of young lavas seeming old?

Journal articles are anecdotal?

Knight
March 24th, 2006, 03:47 PM
What is your evidence other than perhaps anecdotal evidence of young lavas seeming old?Jukia... first off I am NOT an expert in this field, I do not make that claim.

Yet us laymen also form opinions based on the evidence we see, hear and read.

I will let you "experts" hash out the details. :D

Jukia
March 24th, 2006, 03:52 PM
Jukia... first off I am NOT an expert in this field, I do not make that claim.

Yet us laymen also form opinions based on the evidence we see, hear and read.

I will let you "experts" hash out the details. :D
Knight, I am not an expert either but I do have a decent science background and a bit of a theology background.
Your statement was that a young earth offers the most compelling evidence.
Absent looking at the evidence from a literal Biblical perspective, what is that evidence that pushed you over the edge???
Thanks

fool
March 24th, 2006, 03:55 PM
IF;
The comets were formed as a result of ejecta from Earth.............................................
Hmmmmmmm........................................
Can't see it, nope.
First, some of them got crazy long periods, go out past pluto, way past, then come around again, if the Earth squirted something out with enough force to put it into that orbit seems like it would alter the Earths vectors, maybe it did, also, leaving the atmosphere at the velocity required to achive those orbits would cause alot of friction, so liquid water is out. The best we could do is get water vapor up there, but that's got more problems, prolly gonna disperse in the vacum, maybe not.
So, stuff gets shot away from the Earth, vaporizes on it's way outa the atmosphere, the cloud sticks together close enough to condence, gravity makes a snow ball outa it, then Yaweh smacks it with a cricket bat to put it in it's long period orbit. Is that about it?

Knight
March 24th, 2006, 04:04 PM
Knight, I am not an expert either but I do have a decent science background and a bit of a theology background.
Your statement was that a young earth offers the most compelling evidence.
Absent looking at the evidence from a literal Biblical perspective, what is that evidence that pushed you over the edge???
ThanksSince we are on the topic of Walt Brown here is a run down of some of the reasons I changed my mind.

Keep in mind I didn't know about Walt Brown at the time but his book does have a great summary at the begining of the book so I am gonna borrow it.... :)

Life Sciences (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences2.html#wp1159872)

The Theory of Organic Evolution Is Invalid. (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences3.html#wp1067585)

Organic Evolution Has Never Been Observed. (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences3.html#wp1036622)

The Law of Biogenesis (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences4.html#wp1036679)

Acquired Characteristics (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences5.html#wp1008764)

Mendel’s Laws (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences6.html#wp1072162)

Bounded Variations (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences7.html#wp1053690)

Natural Selection (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences8.html#wp1194028)

Mutations (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences9.html#wp1008854)

Fruit Flies (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences10.html#wp1048910)

Complex Molecules and Organs (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences11.html#wp1008873)

Fully-Developed Organs (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences12.html#wp1008884)

Distinct Types (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences13.html#wp1008897)

Altruism (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences14.html#wp1077153)

Extraterrestrial Life? (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences15.html#wp1603091)

Language (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences16.html#wp1008968)

Speech (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences17.html#wp1008996)

Codes and Programs (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html#wp1050369)

Information (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences19.html#wp1009027)

The Arguments for Evolution Are Outdated and Often Illogical. (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences20.html#wp1612935)

Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences21.html#wp1612912)

Vestigial Organs (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences22.html#wp1616566)

Two-Celled Life? (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences23.html#wp1616626)

Embryology (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences24.html#wp1009086)

Rapid Burial (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences25.html#wp1029340)

Parallel Strata (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences26.html#wp1009156)

Fossil Gaps (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019)

Missing Trunk (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences28.html#wp1064364)

Out-of-Place Fossils (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences29.html#wp1055073)

Ape-Men? (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences30.html#wp1418274)

Fossil Man (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences31.html#wp1009380)

Life Is So Complex That Chance Processes, Even over Billions of Years, Cannot Explain Its Origin. (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences32.html#wp1180030)

Chemical Elements of Life (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences33.html#wp1009402)

Proteins (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences34.html#wp1009442)

The First Cell (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences35.html#wp1711539)

Barriers, Buffers, and Chemical Pathways (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences36.html#wp1009488)

Genetic Distances (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences37.html#wp1009494)

Genetic Information (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences38.html#wp1009517)

DNA Production and Repair (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences39.html#wp1362067)

Handedness: Left and Right (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences40.html#wp1009545)

The Elephant in the Living Room (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences38.html#wp1813722)

Improbabilities (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences41.html#wp1542892)

Metamorphosis (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences42.html#wp1345856)

Symbiotic Relationships (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences43.html#wp1015241)

Sexual Reproduction (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences44.html#wp1028968)

Immune Systems (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences45.html#wp1027797)

Living Technology (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences46.html#wp1027893)

The Validity of Thought (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences47.html#wp1082496)

Life Science Conclusions (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences48.html#wp1009763)

Knight
March 24th, 2006, 04:06 PM
IF;
The comets were formed as a result of ejecta from Earth.............................................
Hmmmmmmm........................................
Can't see it, nope.
First, some of them got crazy long periods, go out past pluto, way past, then come around again, if the Earth squirted something out with enough force to put it into that orbit seems like it would alter the Earths vectors, maybe it did, also, leaving the atmosphere at the velocity required to achive those orbits would cause alot of friction, so liquid water is out. The best we could do is get water vapor up there, but that's got more problems, prolly gonna disperse in the vacum, maybe not.
So, stuff gets shot away from the Earth, vaporizes on it's way outa the atmosphere, the cloud sticks together close enough to condence, gravity makes a snow ball outa it, then Yaweh smacks it with a cricket bat to put it in it's long period orbit. Is that about it?Maybe you should read the book before you comment.

Just a thought.

Johnny
March 24th, 2006, 04:34 PM
I don't have time to look at all these. A cursory examination reveals just how bad Dr. Brown's "science" is.

1)"The Theory of Organic Evolution Is Invalid." The page said, "Organic Evolution Has Never Been Observed". Brown defined organic evolution as, "naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity." This is incorrect. The lactase gene produces increasing and inheritable complexity. It evolved under laboratory conditions. This was done in the 80s.

2) "The Law of Biogenesis". The page states, "The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes." Incorrect, again. The theory does not state this. I checked the author's source, and it had nothing to do with evolution stating this. This is blatantly wrong.

3) Brown states, "While almost all evolutionists agree that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, many unconsciously slip into this false belief. On occasion, Darwin did." He cites no support for the fact that modern evolutionists slip into this false belief. It is true that Darwin did, but at the time there was no model for inheritance.

I clicked randomly on "Complex Molecules and Organs". I was greeted with, "Many molecules necessary for life, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, are so incredibly complex that claims they evolved are questionable. Furthermore, those claims lack experimental support.". I checked the source on this reference, which was “There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems.” Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 179. Behe is wrong (as demonstrated in court)

If you use Dr. Brown as a scientific resource, you might want to check out this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0877287023/103-2386643-2004651?v=glance&n=283155). It should be right up your ally.

bob b
March 24th, 2006, 04:50 PM
IF;
The comets were formed as a result of ejecta from Earth.............................................
Hmmmmmmm........................................
Can't see it, nope.
First, some of them got crazy long periods, go out past pluto, way past, then come around again, if the Earth squirted something out with enough force to put it into that orbit seems like it would alter the Earths vectors, maybe it did, also, leaving the atmosphere at the velocity required to achive those orbits would cause alot of friction, so liquid water is out. The best we could do is get water vapor up there, but that's got more problems, prolly gonna disperse in the vacum, maybe not.
So, stuff gets shot away from the Earth, vaporizes on it's way outa the atmosphere, the cloud sticks together close enough to condence, gravity makes a snow ball outa it, then Yaweh smacks it with a cricket bat to put it in it's long period orbit. Is that about it?

The recent comet encounter by NASA showed that at least this one comet was not a "dirty snowball" as previously had been thought. Now scientists are begining to consider the possibility that the "dirty snowball" idea was flat out wrong.

PlastikBuddha
March 24th, 2006, 04:57 PM
I think announcing the death of the dirty snowball may be a bit premature. From what I understand the comet particles brought back to earth show complex chemicals created by more heat than is available in the Oort Cloud. The dirty ice is still there, just a little dirtier, and it possibly moves their origins further into the solar disk during the formation of the solar system. This is some pretty preliminary data, though- it will be years before all the secrets have been extracted from that little payload.

Knight
March 24th, 2006, 06:05 PM
If you use Dr. Brown as a scientific resource, you might want to check out this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0877287023/103-2386643-2004651?v=glance&n=283155). It should be right up your ally.:rotfl: Coming from a guy who believes in time machines!!!

Here (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0600570312/sr=8-1/qid=1143245063/ref=sr_1_1/002-4853123-3208004?%5Fencoding=UTF8) is a book that would be up your ally.

fool
March 24th, 2006, 09:23 PM
Maybe you should read the book before you comment.

Just a thought.
Well................................
See'in as you have read the book, and you're real smart, and I'm not, why don't you go ahead and field them questions, see'in as I ain't got the book in question handy around.
Just a thought.

Knight
March 24th, 2006, 09:32 PM
Well................................
See'in as you have read the book, and you're real smart, and I'm not, why don't you go ahead and field them questions, see'in as I ain't got the book in question handy around.
Just a thought.I am not the author.

Furthermore... I haven't read the book in about three years so I might do it a serious injustice.

If you are interested in the book read it online for free! (http://www.creationscience.com/)

Or buy the book yourself. :)

Johnny
March 25th, 2006, 02:55 AM
Coming from a guy who believes in time machines!!! I don't think you understood the argument properly.