Page 28 of 60 FirstFirst ... 182223242526272829303132333438 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 560 of 1196

Thread: Science Disproves Evolution

  1. #541
    Join Date
    Dec 07 2010
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    770

    Life Science Conclusions 3

    Before 1977, it was thought that sunlight provided the energy for all life. We now know that some organisms, living at widely separated locations on the dark ocean floor, use only chemical and thermal energy. For one energy-conversion system to evolve into another would be like changing, by thousands of rare accidents, the wood-burning heating systems of widely separated homes to electricity—but slowly, one accident each year. The occupants would risk freezing every winter. How such a system could evolve on different ocean floors, without solar energy, and in a cold, diluting environment has yet to be explained.

    If evolution happened, many other giant leaps must also have occurred: the first photosynthesis, cold-blooded to warm-blooded animals, floating marine plants to vascular plants, placental mammals to marsupials, egg-laying animals to animals that bear live young, insect metamorphosis, the transition of mammals to the sea (whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, sea lions, and manatees), the transition of reptiles to the sea (plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs), and on and on.

    Gaps in the fossil record are well known. A century ago, evolutionists argued that these gaps would be filled as knowledge increased. The same gaps persist, and most paleontologists now admit that those predictions failed. Of course, the most famous “missing link” is between man and apes, but the term is deceiving. There is not merely one missing link, but thousands—a long chain—if the evolutionary tree were to connect man and apes (with their many linguistic, social, mental, and physical differences).

    Scientific advancements have shown that evolution is an even more absurd theory than it seemed in Darwin’s day. It is a theory without a mechanism. Not even appeals to long periods of time will allow simple organisms to “jump gaps” and become more complex and viable. In fact, as the next section will show, long periods of time make such leaps even less likely. Later in this book, you will see that those long, unimaginable time periods in which evolution was claimed were a result of a scientific blunder—failure to understand the origin of earth’s radioactivity.

    Breeding experiments that many had hoped would demonstrate macroevolution have failed. The arguments used by Darwin and his followers are now discredited or, at best, in dispute, even among evolutionists. Finally, research during the last several decades has shown that the requirements for life are incredibly complex. Just the design that most people can see around them obviously implies a designer. Oddly enough, evolutionists still argue against this design by using arguments which they spent a great deal of time designing. The theory of organic evolution is invalid.

    As we leave the life sciences and examine the astronomical and physical sciences, we will see many other serious problems with evolutionary theories. If the Earth, the solar system, our galaxy, the universe, or even the heavier chemical elements could not have evolved, as now seems to be the case, then organic evolution could not even have begun.

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  2. #542
    Join Date
    Dec 07 2010
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    770

    Strange Planets 1

    Many undisputed observations contradict current theories on how the solar system evolved (a). One theory says planets formed when a star, passing near our Sun, tore matter from the Sun. More popular theories hold that the solar system formed from a cloud of swirling gas, dust, or larger particles. If the planets and their known moons evolved from the same material, they should have many similarities. After several decades of planetary exploration, this expectation is now recognized as false (b).



    Figure 22: Unique Planets. This is a composite photograph (not-to-scale) of all planets in the solar system, except Pluto. They are, from top to bottom: Mercury, Venus, Earth (with the Moon to the right), Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus
    , and Neptune. The photos were taken by Mariner 10 (Mercury), Pioneer Venus Orbiter (Venus), Apollo 17 astronauts (Earth), Earth-based telescopes (Moon and Mars), and the two Voyager spacecraft (the four giant planets).

    Each planet is unique. Similarities that would be expected if the planets had evolved from the same swirling dust cloud are seldom found. Yet most planetary studies begin by assuming that the planets evolved and are therefore similar. Typical arguments are as follows: “By studying the magnetic field (or any other feature) of Planet X, we will better understand how Earth’s magnetic field evolved.” Actually, each magnetic field is surprisingly different. “By studying Earth’s sister planet, Venus, we will see how plate tectonics shaped its surface and better understand how plate tectonics works on Earth.” It is now recognized that plate tectonics does not occur on Venus.

    a. “...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.

    “To sum up, I think that all suggested accounts of the origin of the Solar System are subject to serious objections. The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the system cannot exist.” Harold Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History, and Physical Constitution, 6th edition (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1976), p. 387.

    “But if we had a reliable theory of the origin of planets, if we knew of some mechanism consistent with the laws of physics so that we understood how planets form, then clearly we could make use of it to estimate the probability that other stars have attendant planets. However, no such theory exists yet, despite the large number of hypotheses suggested.” R. A. Lyttleton, Mysteries of the Solar System (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1968), p. 4.

    “A great array of observational facts must be explained by a satisfactory theory, [on the evolution of the solar system] and the theory must be consistent with the principles of dynamics and modern physics. All of the hypotheses so far presented have failed, or remain unproved, when physical theory is properly applied.” Fred L. Whipple, Earth, Moon, and Planets, 3rd edition (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 243.

    “Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the Solar System began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.” Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 91.

    b. “I wish it were not so, but I’m somewhat skeptical that we’re going to learn an awful lot about Earth by looking at other planetary bodies. The more that we look at the different planets, the more each one seems to be unique.” Michael Carr, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “The Solar System’s New Diversity,” Science, Vol. 265, 2 September 1994, p. 1360.

    “The most striking outcome of planetary exploration is the diversity of the planets.” David Stevenson, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, Ibid.

    “Stevenson and others are puzzling out how subtle differences in starting conditions such as distance from the sun, along with chance events like giant impacts early in the solar system history, can send planets down vastly different evolutionary paths.” Kerr, Ibid.

    “You put together the same basic materials and get startlingl y different results. No two [planets] are alike; it’s like a zoo.” Alexander Dessler, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, Ibid., p. 1361.

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  3. #543
    Join Date
    May 26 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    17,320
    FUK U PAHU! LOL

  4. #544
    Join Date
    Dec 07 2010
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    770

    Strange Planets 2

    According to these evolutionary theories:

    Backward-Spinning Planets. All planets should spin in the same direction, but Venus, Uranus (c), and Pluto rotate backwards (d).

    Backward Orbits. Each of the almost 200 known moons in the solar system should orbit its planet in the same direction, but more than 30 have backward orbits (e). Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions.

    Tipped Orbits:

    Moons. The orbit of each of these moons should lie very near the equatorial plane of the planet it orbits, but many, including the Earth’s moon, are in highly inclined orbits (f).

    Planets. The orbital planes of the planets should lie in the equatorial plane of the Sun. Instead, the orbital planes of the planets typically deviate from the Sun’s equatorial plane by 7 degrees, a significant amount.

    Angular Momentum. The Sun should have about 700 times more angular momentum than all the planets combined. Instead, the planets have 50 times more angular momentum than the Sun (g).

    c. Uranus’ spin axis is “tilted” 98°. In other words, Uranus spins on its side and slightly backwards. Evolutionists have incorrectly speculated that Uranus must have been tipped over by a giant impact. However, such an impact would not have changed the orbital planes of Uranus’ larger moons, which are also “tipped over.”

    d. The Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2003 (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003), p. F2.

    e. For more information on the battles among astronomers concerning Pluto’s planetary status, see Laurence A. Marschall and Stephen P. Maran, Pluto Confidential (Dallas, Texas: Benbella Books, Inc., 2009). Thousands of professional astronomers will not abide by the IAU’s stealthy vote and will continue to consider Pluto a planet.

    f.Ibid.

    g. Ibid.

    The Moon’s orbital plane is inclined 18.5° – 28.5° to the Earth’s equatorial plane. (Actually, the Moon’s orbital plane precesses between those values over an 18.6-year cycle.) This is a considerable inclination when one recognizes that the Moon possesses 82.9% of the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system. No other planet-satellite system comes close to this amount.

    Theories that for centuries claimed to show how the Moon evolved can now be rejected because of this fact alone. A more recent theory claims that a Mars-size body collided with the early Earth and kicked up debris that formed the Moon. Ward and Canup acknowledge that:

    “Recent models of this process predict that the orbit of the newly formed Moon should be in, or very near, [less than 1°] the Earth’s equatorial plane.” William R. Ward and Robin M. Canup, “Origin of the Moon’s Orbital Inclination from Resonant Disk Interactions,” Nature, Vol. 403, 17 February 2000, p. 741.

    Nevertheless, speculative ways to circumvent this problem continue to be suggested. Even if some theory could explain the Moon’s high orbital inclination and angular momentum, other problems remain. [See “Origin of the Moon” http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1020197]

    h. Lyttleton, p. 16.

    Fred Hoyle, The Cosmology of the Solar System (Hillside, New Jersey: Enslow Publishers, 1979), pp. 11–12.

    “One of the detailed problems is then to explain how the Sun itself acquires nearly 99.9% of the mass of the solar system but only 2% of its angular momentum.” Frank D. Stacey, Physics of the Earth (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969), p. 4.

    Some have proposed transferring angular momentum from the sun to the planets by “magnetic linking.” McCrea states:

    “However, I scarcely think it has yet been established that the postulated processes would inevitably occur, or that if they did they would operate with the extreme efficiency needed in order to achieve the required distribution of angular momentum.” William Hunter McCrea, “Origin of the Solar System,” Symposium on the Origin of the Solar System (Paris, France: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1972), p. 8.



    Figure 23: Saturn and Six of Its Moons. Saturn has 60 known moons. One of them, named Phoebe, has an orbit almost perpendicular to Saturn’s equator. This is difficult for evolutionist astronomers to explain.

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  5. #545
    Join Date
    May 26 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    17,320
    ONE
    TWO
    THREE
    FOUR
    FUCK U PAHU
    UR A WHORE!

  6. #546
    Join Date
    Jul 19 2005
    Posts
    1,112
    Isn't this basically spam?

  7. #547
    Join Date
    Jun 20 2005
    Location
    location, location
    Age
    45
    Posts
    12,471
    Quote Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
    Isn't this basically spam?
    I don't think he's trying to sell anything. They let kthankunicstang or whatever have like hundreds of pages where he ranted completely incoherently about jews and blacks and the conspiracy to bring down ball-headed tattooed trailer trash in Idaho - - or something like that.

    One of the things I most like about this place is they don't care how stupid your ideas are, as long as you follow the very, very, very lenient rules.
    "All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell [the bible] teaches us how to run all our public policy and everything in society." Rep. Paul Broun (R)

    "I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!" -- Jerry Falwell

  8. #548
    Join Date
    Jul 19 2005
    Posts
    1,112
    Quote Originally Posted by BooRadley View Post
    I don't think he's trying to sell anything. They let kthankunicstang or whatever have like hundreds of pages where he ranted completely incoherently about jews and blacks and the conspiracy to bring down ball-headed tattooed trailer trash in Idaho - - or something like that.

    One of the things I most like about this place is they don't care how stupid your ideas are, as long as you follow the very, very, very lenient rules.
    I know he's not selling anything but ideas (which would be fine) but he's just C&Ping someone else's book. Page after page.

    This is just incredibly lame and annoying.

  9. #549
    Join Date
    Jun 20 2005
    Location
    location, location
    Age
    45
    Posts
    12,471
    Quote Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
    I know he's not selling anything but ideas (which would be fine) but he's just C&Ping someone else's book. Page after page.

    This is just incredibly lame and annoying.
    Decidedly lame. I wonder if he's reading any of the comments he's gotten.
    "All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell [the bible] teaches us how to run all our public policy and everything in society." Rep. Paul Broun (R)

    "I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!" -- Jerry Falwell

  10. #550
    Join Date
    Jul 19 2005
    Posts
    1,112
    Quote Originally Posted by BooRadley View Post
    Decidedly lame. I wonder if he's reading any of the comments he's gotten.
    Pretty sure he's not.

    He's just spreading the mustard seeds of faith to all us lost souls here.

    Reading comments might harsh his mellow.

  11. #551
    Join Date
    May 26 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    17,320
    Mods should actually delete this thread. Copyright infringement, etc.

  12. #552
    Join Date
    Jun 20 2005
    Location
    location, location
    Age
    45
    Posts
    12,471
    Quote Originally Posted by optimus View Post
    Mods should actually delete this thread. Copyright infringement, etc.
    I don't think that pertains:

    Any portion of this book may be reproduced for teaching or classroom use.
    For all other uses, simply reference this book and Walt Brown as your source.
    (To publish figures not belonging to CSC, contact the owners for permission.)

    The entire book is at CSC’s website
    www.creationscience.com
    The web version of the book will be periodically updated.
    There is no charge for reading or printing any or all portions of it.
    http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Preface.html
    "All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell [the bible] teaches us how to run all our public policy and everything in society." Rep. Paul Broun (R)

    "I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!" -- Jerry Falwell

  13. #553
    hadit is offline Super Moderator Super Mod
    Join Date
    Nov 24 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    33,316
    He obviously doesn't care what you think of him.
    Hillary: "We cannot let a minority of people … hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.". Welcome to Mind Control Central, USA.

  14. #554
    Join Date
    Dec 07 2010
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    770

    Strange Planets 3

    Is Pluto a Planet?

    In 2006, after years of internal debate, 4% of the members of the International Astronomical Union (IAU)—those meeting in Prague—to no longer call Pluto a planet. Instead, they said voted Pluto is a transneptunian object (i).

    The IAU had no jurisdiction to change the definition of “planet” for the rest of the world. It is fine for an organization to tell others what it considers a word to mean, but common usage is the basis for definitions. Our language is filled with scientific words whose meanings have changed based on new discoveries and broader understandings. Few meanings have changed based on an organization’s vote.

    Since Pluto’s discovery 76 years earlier, Pluto has been a thorn in the side of astronomers trying to explain how planets evolve, because so many characteristics of Pluto do not fit into evolutionary scenarios. No longer calling Pluto a planet (even though it is spherical, has three known moons, and orbits the Sun in the right direction) may reduce those man-made problems, but now calls attention to the more difficult question of how a thousand transneptunian objects evolved.

    In 1930, after astronomers had been searching for a suspected ninth planet for 25 years, a tenacious farm boy from Kansas, Clyde W. Tombaugh (1906–1997), discovered Pluto. He later became one of my favorite professors. Going to his backyard to use his handmade 9-inch telescope was memorable. Professor Tombaugh was a warm, unpretentious man with the biggest smile you have ever seen. However, in class, he sometimes became irate at astronomers who made pronouncements but seldom touched a telescope.

    Classification can be a useful tool, but at other times it leads to endless arguments, because the world (or, in this case, the solar system) is usually more complicated than theories imply. We can call Pluto anything we wish, but tens of thousands of books and hundreds of millions of students have called Pluto a planet.

    What is a planet? Its original meaning was “wandering star.” I will always associate Pluto with Clyde Tombaugh and the worldwide excitement of finally discovering the ninth planet. For historical reasons, if nothing else, I suspect that millions of others will continue to call Pluto a planet as well as a transneptunian object.

    Semantics aside, the scientific question remains: how could Pluto evolve?

    i. Far more astronomers and planetary scientists quickly signed a petition opposing the IAU’s vote. They said:

    “We, as planetary scientists and astronomers, do not agree with the IAU’s definition of a planet, nor will we use it.”

    Jenny Hogan, “Pluto: The Backlash Begins,” Nature, Vol. 442, 31 August 2006, pp. 965.

    A transneptunian object is a body that orbits the Sun—usually beyond the orbit of the planet Neptune, about 30 astronomical units, or 2.8 billion miles, from the Sun.

    Contributing to the IAU’s decision to remove Pluto’s status as a planet was its small size (two-thirds the diameter of our moon) and the discovery, beginning in 1992, of what are now more than a thousand transneptunian objects, at least two of which are larger than Pluto. All are much farther from the Sun than Pluto.

    A simple fix for the IAU would have been to define transneptunian objects as those bodies that always orbit the Sun beyond the orbit of Neptune. (Pluto’s orbit sometimes comes inside that of Neptune.) Also, an honest acknowledgement that all planets are unique would have clarified matters. Even the many planets that have been discovered outside the solar system are completely different from those inside the solar system. Evolutionary process will not explain them all.

    [See Have Planets Been Discovered Outside the Solar System? ]

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  15. #555
    Join Date
    Mar 08 2012
    Location
    DC PENSYLVANIA
    Posts
    110
    We should believe everything our very kind isp allows us to see online?(ROBOCOP REFERENCE) Are you on NUKE?

  16. #556
    Join Date
    Jun 20 2005
    Location
    location, location
    Age
    45
    Posts
    12,471
    Quote Originally Posted by hadit View Post
    He obviously doesn't care what you think of him.
    He obviously doesn't think.
    "All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell [the bible] teaches us how to run all our public policy and everything in society." Rep. Paul Broun (R)

    "I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!" -- Jerry Falwell

  17. #557
    Join Date
    Dec 07 2010
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    770

    Earth: The Water Planet 1

    The amount of water on Earth greatly exceeds that known on or within any other planet in the solar system. Liquid water, which is essential for life to survive, has unique and amazing properties; it covers 70% of Earth’s surface. Where did all Earth’s water come from?

    If the Earth and solar system evolved from a swirling cloud of dust and gas, almost no water would reside near Earth’s present orbit. Any water (liquid or ice) that close to the Sun would vaporize and be blown by solar wind to the outer reaches of the solar system (a), as we see happening with water vapor in the tails of comets.

    a. “Earth has substantially more water than scientists would expect to find at a mere 93 million miles from the sun.” Ben Harder, “Water for the Rock: Did Earth’s Oceans Come from the Heavens?” Science News, Vol. 161, 23 March 2002, p. 184.

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  18. #558
    Join Date
    Dec 07 2010
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    770

    Earth: The Water Planet 2


    Did comets or meteorites deliver Earth’s water? Although comets contain considerable water (b), comets did not provide much of the Earth’s water, because comet water contains too much heavy hydrogen, relatively rare in Earth’s oceans. Comets also contain too much argon. If comets provided only 1% of Earth’s water, then our atmosphere should have 400 times more argon than it does (c). The few types of meteorites that contain water
    also have too much heavy hydrogen (d). [Pages 278–333 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1069425] explain why comets and some types of meteorites contain so much water and heavy hydrogen. Pages 337–383 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp7826136] explain why comets have so much argon. Heavy hydrogen is described on page 286 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...l#wp1230689].]

    These observations have caused some to conclude that water was transported from the outer solar system to Earth by objects that no longer exist (e). If so, many of these “water tankers” should have collided with the other inner planets (Mercury, Venus, and Mars), producing water characteristics similar to those of Earth. In fact, their water characteristics are not like those of Earth (f). Instead of imagining “water tankers” that conveniently disappeared, perhaps we should ask if the Earth was created with its water already present.

    a. “Earth has substantially more water than scientists would expect to find at a mere 93 million miles from the sun.” Ben Harder, “Water for the Rock: Did Earth’s Oceans Come from the Heavens?” Science News, Vol. 161, 23 March 2002, p. 184.

    b. The water content of Comet Tempel 1 was 38% by mass. [See Endnote 4 on page 300 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...#wp15540965].]

    c. “Hence, if comets like Hale-Bopp brought in the Earth’s water, they would have brought in a factor of 40,000 times more argon than is presently in the atmosphere.” T. D. Swindle and D. A. Kring, “Implications of Noble Gas Budgets for the Origin of Water on Earth and Mars,” Eleventh Annual V. M. Goldschmidt Conference, Abstract No. 3785 (Houston: Lunar and Planetary Institute, 20–24 May 2001). [To learn how comets probably collected argon, see Endnote 31 on page 302 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...l#wp1357192].]

    d. “Oxygen, D/H and Os [osmium] isotopic ratios all...rule out extant meteoritic material as sources of the Earth’s water.” Michael J. Drake and Kevin Righter, “Determining the Composition of the Earth,” Nature, Vol. 416, 7 March 2002, p. 42.

    D/H is the ratio of heavy hydrogen (also called deuterium, or D) to normal hydrogen (H). Drake and Righter give many other reasons why meteorites could not have provided much of Earth’s water.

    e. “If existing objects in space couldn’t have combined to make Earth’s unique mix of water and other elements, the planet must have formed from—and entirely depleted—an ancient supply of water-rich material that has no modern analog, Drake and Righter argue.” Harder, p. 185.

    f. “If water came from millions of comets or small asteroids, the same steady rain would have bombarded Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, so they would all have begun with the same water characteristics, he says. However, the waters of those four planets now have dissimilar profiles, Owen and other geochemists have found.” Ibid.

    After reading pages 278–333, you will see that the water in comets, asteroids, and meteoroids—as well as some water detected elsewhere in the inner solar system—came primarily from the subterranean water chambers. During the flood, this subterranean water mixed with Earth’s surface water, giving our surface water different isotope characteristics from water in comets, asteroids, and meteoroids.

    “The carrier’s [the tanker’s] elemental and isotopic characteristics would have to have been unlike those of any object that researchers have yet found in the solar system....it doesn’t seem geochemically plausible...” Ibid., p. 186.

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  19. #559
    Join Date
    Dec 07 2010
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    770

    Molten Earth? 1

    For decades, textbooks have taught that the early Earth was molten for 500,000,000 years, because it formed by meteoritic bombardment (a). If so, the heat released by the impacts would have melted the entire Earth many times over (b). Had Earth ever been molten, dense, nonreactive chemical elements such as gold would have sunk to Earth’s core. Gold is 70% denser than lead, yet is found at the Earth’s surface (c). Therefore, the entire Earth was never molten and did not form by meteoritic bombardment.

    a. “The textbook view that the earth spent its first half a billion years drenched in magma could be wrong.” John W. Valley, “A Cool Early Earth?” Scientific American, Vol. 294, October 2005, p. 59.

    b. “The kinetic energy (~5 x 10^38 ergs) released in the largest impacts (1.5 x 10^27 g at 9 km/sec) would be several times greater than that required to melt the entire Earth.” George W. Wetherill, “Occurrence of Giant Impacts during the Growth of the Terrestrial Planets,” Science, Vol. 228, 17 May 1985, p. 879.

    c. If gold were found only near volcanoes, then one might claim that gold was brought up to the Earth’s surface by volcanoes. However, gold is seldom found near volcanoes.

    Suppose that extremely hot water (932°F or 500°C) circulated under the crust—a crust that had never been molten. Gold in high concentrations could go into solution. If the solution then came up to the Earth’s surface fast enough, little gold would precipitate as the water’s pressure dropped. If this happened, about 250 cubic miles of water must have burst forth to account for the gold found in just one gold mining region in Canada. [See Robert Kerrich, “Nature’s Gold Factory,” Science, Vol. 284, 25 June 1999, pp. 2101–2102.] If these ideal pressure-temperature conditions did not exist, even more water must come up faster to account for the Earth’s gold deposits. These are hardly the slow processes that evolutionists visualize. On pages 108–139 and 429–433, you will see how, why, and when vast amounts of hot water burst up through faults.

    About 40% of all gold mined in the world is from the Witwatersrand Basin in South Africa. This gold, deposited in compressional fractures within the basin, precipitated from water whose temperature exceeded 300°C. [See A. C. Barnicoat et al., “Hydrothermal Gold Mineralization in the Witwatersrand Basin,” Nature, Vol. 386, 24 April 1997, pp. 820–824.]

    Robert R. Loucks and John A. Mavrogenes, “Gold Solubility in Supercritical Hydrothermal Brines Measured in Synthetic Fluid Inclusions,” Science, Vol. 284, 25 June 1999, pp. 2159–2163.


    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  20. #560
    Join Date
    Dec 07 2010
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    770

    Molten Earth? 2

    Radioactive dating of certain zircon minerals also contradicts a molten Earth. Trace elements within those zircons show that the zircons formed on a cold Earth (less than 212°F) (d). However, based on radioactive dating, those zircons formed billions of years ago when, according to evolutionists, the Earth should have been molten (exceeding 1,800°F)—an obvious contradiction. Either the molten Earth idea or the radioactive dating method must be wrong; perhaps both are wrong.

    Meteorites contain much more of the element xenon than Earth’s surface rocks, relative to other noble (inert) gases such as helium, neon, and argon. Had Earth formed by meteoritic bombardment, Earth’s surface rocks would have a different composition, and our atmosphere would contain up to ten times more xenon than it has (e). If Earth did not evolve by meteoritic bombardment, it may have begun as one large body. [See “Melting the Inner Earth” on pages 518–521.]

    d. John W. Valley, “A Cool Early Earth?” Scientific American, Vol. 294, October 2005, pp. 58–65.

    e. “Meteorites, he notes, contain 10 times as much xenon, relative to other noble gasses, than occurs in Earth’s atmosphere. In addition, the relative abundance of xenon isotopes found in meteorites doesn’t jibe with the pattern found on Earth. If meteorites did deliver most of the water to our planet, they also would have provided xenon, and our atmosphere would have to have a very different composition, Owen maintains.” Ron Cowen, “Found: Primordial Water,” Science News, Vol. 156, 30 October 1999, p. 285.

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •