but, but, but, the scientists were surprised. Therefore Genesis is shown to be scientifically accurate again.
Or something like that.
RSR's List of Problems with Solar System Formation
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
but, but, but, the scientists were surprised. Therefore Genesis is shown to be scientifically accurate again.
Or something like that.
6days
New member
The recent geological activity may indicate the planet is only thousands of years old. If it was billions of years old the core may be cool with no geogical activity.
6days
New member
That would be a false conclusion Jonah. A better conclusion would be that secular predictions were wrong, therefore their hypothesis may be wrong.
Tyrathca
New member
Well duh, that's exactly what the scientists think. The question then becomes why it is wrong and by how much. You however seem to jump from A secular hypothesis is wrong therefore ALL secular hypotheses are wrong therefore your poorly thought out hypothesis with no detail or predictive power should be considered likely over other secular hypotheses.
Well, I am glad you agree that the condition of Pluto is not support for the accuracy of your reading of Genesis.
But if that is what you think, why bother to post what you did? Your interest has been shown to have little to do with scientific accuracy but much to do with your desire/need to find the Genesis story to be 100% true.
6days
New member
Pluto is consistent with God's Word... and consistent with Walt Browns hydoplate theory.
6days
New member
Nope..... many secular hypothesis and theories are correct. However they are wrong if they contradict God's Word.
And actually, Pluto is consistent with Walt Browns hydroplate theory and predictions he made. The Carbon monoxide 'lake' fits well within his theory. Pluto has been a big surprise to the secularists...it did not match their expectations.
Reliance on your version of "God's Word" is missplaced faith, reliance on Brown's hydroplate theory is simply irrational.
Tyrathca
New member
That is your assumption. It's not even a hypothesis, you've just admitted that even if you are wrong you'll ignore it.
Suuuuure it does.... do actually have a reason for saying that other than "sounds sorta related - "lake" & "hydro" see! - plus it's creationisty" ? Where can we find these Pluto predictions by Walt Brown? (Google didn't help). Any description that uses some physics?
6days
New member
Of course not a hypotheses. It's a belief based on evidence. It's like our belief that our heart will take the next beat.*Tyrathca said:
Apologies that you didn't understand. I said no such thing.*Tyrathca said:
"So how did carbon monoxide form on Pluto? Walter T. Brown of the*Center for Scientific Creation*gave an answer today. According to theHydroplate Theory, all trans-Neptunian objects, like all asteroids, comets, and meteoroids, formed from water, rock and mud from earth. A breakout of a subcrustal ocean about fifty miles below ground threw out vast amounts of this material – perhaps as much as four percent of the mass of the earth. The mud and rock included uprooted trees and shrubs from the forests of the early earth.Tyrathca said:
"Pluto and its largest moon Charon formed when a swarm of water, rock and mud*accreted*to form these two objects. All such accretions released kinetic energy as heat. The heat on Pluto (and on Charon) eventually caused “slushy geysers” to erupt to the surface. Some of these geysers produced the 3500-meter (11,000-foot) mountains at Pluto’s equator.
"But the heat, says Brown,*also*burned the uprooted trees, shrubs, and other vegetable matter that accreted with the other matter (water, rock and mud) to form Pluto. And of course, that burning needed oxygen. Oxygen came from one or both of two sources. Either it escaped from earth with the solids and liquids, or formed when water vapor dissociated in the sunlight of the inner solar system. But burning in a confined space yielded carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide.
"When that gas broke out onto the surface (on Tombaugh Regio), it condensed, then fell as rain into a basin in the heart shape. Then it froze. The published photo shows contours of ever-increasing amounts of carbon monoxide as one approaches the center of the lake. One would expect precisely that when looking down on a lake; the contours in fact show its depth.
"As of the time of posting, the*New Horizonscontrol and investigation teams have*not*tried to explain the carbon monoxide. They merely describe it. How they will try to explain it, the world must wait and see."
http://www.examiner.com/article/carbon-monoxide-on-pluto
Imagine, scientists do not have an explanation for something they did not expect. Quelle surprise.
Instead we are to take the theory of the guy who does not have the intellectual courage to publish in the scientific literature. Well, that makes no sense.
I am still missing the method by which Brown's theory gets rid of all the heat caused by the H-bomb equivalents he needs.
Are you kidding me?
Is Walt Brown actually saying that Pluto, its 5 moons, all of the Kuiper Belt and all of the Oort Cloud material is actually ejected material from the Earth's crust?
6days
New member
This.....
So how did carbon monoxide form on Pluto? Walter T. Brown of the*Center for Scientific Creation*gave an answer today. According to theHydroplate Theory, all trans-Neptunian objects, like all asteroids, comets, and meteoroids, formed from water, rock and mud from earth. A breakout of a subcrustal ocean about fifty miles below ground threw out vast amounts of this material – perhaps as much as four percent of the mass of the earth. The mud and rock included uprooted trees and shrubs from the forests of the early earth.
"Pluto and its largest moon Charon formed when a swarm of water, rock and mud*accreted*to form these two objects. All such accretions released kinetic energy as heat. The heat on Pluto (and on Charon) eventually caused “slushy geysers” to erupt to the surface. Some of these geysers produced the 3500-meter (11,000-foot) mountains at Pluto’s equator.
"But the heat, says Brown,*also*burned the uprooted trees, shrubs, and other vegetable matter that accreted with the other matter (water, rock and mud) to form Pluto. And of course, that burning needed oxygen. Oxygen came from one or both of two sources. Either it escaped from earth with the solids and liquids, or formed when water vapor dissociated in the sunlight of the inner solar system. But burning in a confined space yielded carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide.
"When that gas broke out onto the surface (on Tombaugh Regio), it condensed, then fell as rain into a basin in the heart shape. Then it froze. The published photo shows contours of ever-increasing amounts of carbon monoxide as one approaches the center of the lake. One would expect precisely that when looking down on a lake; the contours in fact show its depth.
"As of the time of posting, the*New Horizonscontrol and investigation teams have*not*tried to explain the carbon monoxide. They merely describe it. How they will try to explain it, the world must wait and see."
http://www.examiner.com/article/carb...oxide-on-pluto
Is the good doctor aware that of the 11 comets for which measurements have been made, it is only the Jupiter-family Comet 103P/Hartley 2 that was found to match the composition of Earth’s water deuterium/hydrogen ratio? Therefore, the other comets cannot be of terrestrial origin (as if that were even possible for other obvious reasons).
6days
New member
What is funny is that evolutionists often argue from both sides of their mouth on the issue. We often see arguments that the deuterium/hydrogen ratio of comets is similar to water on earth. They then use that to say comets supplied the water to Earth's oceans. That is obviously false since God's Word tells us that earth initially was all water. We don't know if Walt Browns theory is correct, but it is consistent with the carbon monoxide on Pluto. And we know that the secular theories of Big Bang and the Nebula Hypothesis can't be believed, without calling God a liar.User Name said:
Wrong. Rational minds know that Dr. Brown's theory is incorrect.
How does he deal with the heat from his H-bomb equivalents?
way 2 go
Well-known member
gcthomas
New member
Hmmm. It is addressed by relying on a paper from the magazine called "Infinite Energy" from an independent "scientist" who also published in "American Angtigravity".
The video also has Bremsstrahlung radiation (electromagnetic radiation) ejecting neutrons from atoms, when they are not affected by electromagnetism (you need the nuclear forces, which EM radiation can't do).
It is crank science bolstered by reliance on fictional papers from cranks.
Consider the problem of the heat thoroughly unsolved.
way 2 go
Well-known member
are you saying
a z-pinch creates massive amounts of heat and
does not create new elements
gcthomas
New member
Of course not. I said that that the proposed mechanism for restricting the amount of heat generation is crank science.
(incidentally, the z-pinch is a technique that is specifically for high vacuum toroidal devices with pulsed supply of electricity from capacitor banks and extremely strongly curved magnetic fields with rotational symmetry. I have yet to a remotely plausible mechanism for generation of this in the Earth.)