Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   20 Questions... (from Walt Brown to evolutionists)
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 31 of 46 (78230)
01-13-2004 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by johnfolton
01-13-2004 12:05 AM


The rocks of the earth would of tended to be wanting to go straight in the direction the earth was moving, prevented these rocks from shooting into the sun, and tending to want to be going straight would of caused them to roll out of the earths gravity and move farther away from the sun, toward the asteroid fields,
An amusing and, of course, totally incorrect exposition of orbital mechanics.
A rock "ejected" from the Earth could (I think) orbit the Earth, it could definitely orbit the Sun, or is could leave the Solar system entirely. If it went into Solar orbit, its orbit would continue to touch the Earth's orbit until interactions with other objects modified its orbit. The likelihood of any one rock "ejected" from the Earth winding up in the asteroid belt is minuscule, the likelihood of several rocks "ejected" from the Earth winding up in the asteroid belt is is infinitesimal, and it is essentially impossible that any large number of rocks "ejected" from the Earth would wind up in the asteriod belt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by johnfolton, posted 01-13-2004 12:05 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by johnfolton, posted 01-13-2004 2:58 PM JonF has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 32 of 46 (78237)
01-13-2004 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by JonF
01-13-2004 1:43 PM


JonF, It does appear that Walt agrees with you, that they were only launched from the earth, but not launched to the asteroid belt, he explains how they moved farther from the sun to the asteroid belt, he says their increasing distance from the sun, their present orbit was due to the Radiometer effect, Walt also explained how asteroids can grow in size, due to the waters, acting as a glue to bind the rocks into a larger bodies, and how the comets formed were primarily ice, not having the density of the asteroids, etc...
Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
In Walts google search engine for his site type: The Origin of Asteroids and Meteoroids
Figure 130: The Radiometer Effect. This well-known novelty, called a radiometer, demonstrates the unusual thrust that pushed asteroids into their present orbits. Sunlight warms the dark side of each vane more than the light side. The partial vacuum inside the bulb approaches that found in outer space, so gas molecules travel relatively long distances before striking other molecules. Gas molecules bounce off the hotter, black side with greater velocity than off the colder, white side. This turns the vanes away from the dark side.
[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-13-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by JonF, posted 01-13-2004 1:43 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by JonF, posted 01-13-2004 3:54 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 33 of 46 (78240)
01-13-2004 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by NosyNed
01-13-2004 12:52 AM


Re: Olympus Mons
I've not heard of any formation by impact though. It sits on the Tharsis bulge but I thought that was also volcanic.
Yeah I guess I was wrong about that. All the sources I'm finding agree that Olympus Mons is volcanic. Geez, I wonder where I heard that about the impact.... huh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 01-13-2004 12:52 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 46 (78241)
01-13-2004 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by crashfrog
01-12-2004 11:59 PM


Olympus Mons is a shield volcano, analogous to what we see in Hawaii.
I can't conceive (argument from ignorance?) of an impact that could create a bulge on the other side of a planet like Mars; the rocks on Mars, first of all, would be elastic enough not to transmit the shock to form a bulge on the other side, and any impact that great would do a heck of a lot more than create a bulge - more like reduce most of Mars to outright rubble.
Edited to add:
I was going to edit this message to say "melt most of Mars" instead of "reduce to rubble", but I see that Crashfrog has already seen information about Olympus Mons - I'm a bit late, I guess.
[This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 01-13-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 01-12-2004 11:59 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 35 of 46 (78251)
01-13-2004 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by johnfolton
01-13-2004 2:58 PM


Another amusing, and again completely incorrect, claim about orbital mechanics. The radiometer effect of the Sun doesn't do what Walt wants it to ... circularize and enlage an elliptical orbit. And it is so weak that it wouldn't wreak any significant orbital change in the 4.5 billion year life of the Solar System.
Walt's making this stuf up from the whole cloth, and relying on your ignorance and lack of critical thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by johnfolton, posted 01-13-2004 2:58 PM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2004 4:09 PM JonF has not replied

  
RRoman
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 46 (78255)
01-13-2004 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by johnfolton
01-13-2004 1:36 PM


quote:
The wandering stars are the planets, but would include the comets, asteroids for they reflect light, too,
I'm no expert in astronomy, but even I can see that it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that the asteroids of the asteroid belt could reflect anywhere near as much light as the planets in order to be mistaken for stars by the ancient people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by johnfolton, posted 01-13-2004 1:36 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 37 of 46 (78256)
01-13-2004 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by JonF
01-13-2004 3:54 PM


The radiometer effect of the Sun doesn't do what Walt wants it to ... circularize and enlage an elliptical orbit.
Actually you're more right than you know - the radiometer effect on asteroids falisifies a young Solar System. So it really doesn't do what Walt wants it to do: falsify creationsim!
I opened a thread for this a few months ago; couldn't get any creationists to respond.
Spin control for asteroids:
EvC Forum: New Nature Article - Spin Control for Asteriods

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by JonF, posted 01-13-2004 3:54 PM JonF has not replied

  
RRoman
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 46 (78257)
01-13-2004 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IrishRockhound
01-08-2004 10:59 AM


quote:
20. Would you explain the origin of any of the following 25 features of the earth:
...
earthquakes
so let me get this straight. Is this guy actually saying that, since science allegedly can't exlain them, earthquakes are caused by God?
[This message has been edited by RRoman, 01-13-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IrishRockhound, posted 01-08-2004 10:59 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 39 of 46 (78265)
01-13-2004 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IrishRockhound
01-08-2004 10:59 AM


quote:
Major Mountain Ranges - Tectonics
I use this context, to take a shot at whomever it was that proposed that Lake Titicaca, in the Andes Mountains, was tectonicly uplifted from sea level.
As I understand it (weasel phrase for "I'm not going to supply a link"), the Andes Mountains are of volcanic origin, with tectonic uplift having little to nothing to do with their height. Of course, tectonism is the root cause of the volcanism.
The volcanic rock type "andesite" got its name from the Andes.
So Major Mountain Ranges - Tectonic uplift and/or volcanism.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IrishRockhound, posted 01-08-2004 10:59 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 46 (78530)
01-14-2004 10:43 PM


Mainstream scientists recognize the existence of radiation-pressure effects on asteroid spin:
Sunlight makes asteroids spin in strange ways
So I don't see how that makes the Universe only 6000 years old.

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 46 (78537)
01-14-2004 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IrishRockhound
01-08-2004 10:59 AM


I'll take up where IrishRockhound had left off.
1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed?
Whatever Walt Brown means by macroevolution. Has he observed Jesus Christ rising from the dead in his tomb?
What’s the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs?
New organs are modifications of existing features; clues are often available from embryonic development. Vertebrate jaws are modified gill bars, vertebrate lungs and livers are modified outpouchings of the gut, etc.
If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ? (Without a vital organ, the organism is deadby definition.)
New organs initially provide assistance, rather than be absolutely necessary. Thus, a fish in a swamp can get more oxygen if it can gulp air, and throat pouches make it easier to absorb oxygen from the air. These pouches are also known as lungs.
If a reptile’s leg evolved into a bird’s wing, wouldn’t it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing?
It could have been an arm for grasping.
How could metamorphosis evolve?
As a byproduct of growth -- different growth stages can get specialized in different directions.
2. Do you realize how complex living things are?
???
How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes?
Step by step.
How could a bacterial motor evolve? How could such motors work until all components evolved completely and were precisely in place?
They were originally strands used for other purposes.
6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information.
Gene duplication.
What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself?
What's "assembling itself"?
If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source.
Except that earlier "detections" of extraterrestrial intelligence have proved to be bogus:
Johannes Kepler thought that the craters of the Moon are intelligently designed, but the large majority of them were made by impacts.
Percival Lowell and some other astronomers had thought that Mars's canals had been built by Martians, but they were a false perception.
When pulsars were first detection, some proposed that they were extraterrestrial beacons, but they are rotating neutron stars.
Why then doesn’t the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacterium also imply an intelligent source?
Because there are more plausible hypotheses than generations of little elves working on the genomes of that bacterium's ancestors.
7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?
Proteins are not "produced", but copied. And that conundrum has led to consideration of an "RNA world", where RNA molecules served as both enzyme and macromolecule. How that RNA originated is another problem, however.
8. How could sexual reproduction evolve?
From asexual one-celled organisms exchanging genes. This gene exchange could lead to organism fusion followed by meiosis. The fused phase could become a persistent diploid phase. And organisms would work out a system for avoiding inbreeding -- some protists and fungi have large numbers of "mating types" or sexes.
Large organisms typically produce gametes which fuse to form new ones. One mating type could get specialized for getting the new organism off to a well-fed start, while another could be specialized for traveling to the aforementioned kind of gamete. Thus the origin of eggs and sperm.
Most aquatic organisms do external fertilization, but internal fertilization evolved several times. A male animal injects some sperm cells into a female one, where they seek out and fertilize eggs. A pollen grain sprouts a long pollen tube which searches for an egg.
How could immune systems evolve?
As a self-recognition system pressed into service to recognize hostile organisms.
5. How could the first living cell begin?
Perhaps from some pre-cellular organism.
How could that first cell reproduce?
By getting bigger and bigger until it splits in two. Walt Brown does not seem to have heard of asexual reproduction.
Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution. Both must come into existence at about the same time.
Actually, being without oxygen is more reasonable, for two reasons.
It agrees with geochemical evidence.
It is necessary for abiogenesis to happen, because living things are out of chemical equilibrium with oxygen, and because the original ancestor would not likely have had oxygen-resistance mechanisms.
9. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn’t it take vastly more intelligence to create a human?
There are lots of complex objects that do not require intelligence to create, like snowflakes. Or are there some little fairies that design each individual snowflake?
Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
Galaxy-sized masses of it can.
10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards?
Off-center collisions and chaotic precession can cause the planets to have such retrograde spins. Satellites can be captured -- and are more easily captured into retrograde orbits.
13. How could stars evolve?
Stellar evolution is not biological evolution, but it's reasonably well-understood.
14. Are you aware of all the unreasonable assumptions and contradictory evidence used by those who say the earth is billions of years old?
Whatever those are supposed to be.
15. Why are living bacteria found inside rocks that you say are hundreds of millions of years old and in meteorites that you say are billions of years old? Clean-room techniques and great care were used to rule out contamination.
And how does Walt Brown know that? There has been a lot of controversy over such finds.
17. Why do so many ancient cultures have flood legends?
From living near river valleys.
18. Have you heard about the mitochondrial Eve and the genetic Adam? Scientists know that the mitochondrial Eve was the common female ancestor of every living person, and she appears to have lived only about 6,000—7,000 years ago.
Demonstrably false -- more like 100,000 years ago. The mitochondrial Eve and the Y-chromosome Adam were simply the most recent ancestors whose mitochondria and Y chromosomes have present-day descendants. That Eve coexisted with many other women, and that Adam with many other men.
(I could be wrong but I think there actually were seven mitochondrial "Eve's". Anyone?)
There was only one, but she had several descendants who were the ancestors of various groups of mitochondrial-DNA sequences. Seven of them had lived in or near Europe; these are the "Seven Daughters of Eve", the title of a book on research into this subject.
19. Careful researchers have found the following inside meteorites: living bacteria, salt crystals, limestone, water, sugars, terrestrial-like brines, and earthlike isotopic patterns. Doesn’t this implicate Earth as their sourceand a powerful launcher, the fountains of the great deep"?
Where are the original reports of these finds? Only Walt Brown seems to know about them.
[This message has been edited by lpetrich, 01-14-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IrishRockhound, posted 01-08-2004 10:59 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by NosyNed, posted 01-15-2004 1:15 AM lpetrich has not replied
 Message 43 by Taqless, posted 01-15-2004 2:13 AM lpetrich has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 42 of 46 (78561)
01-15-2004 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by lpetrich
01-14-2004 11:08 PM


My, My
Where are the original reports of these finds? Only Walt Brown seems to know about them.
Is it possible that Brown's research is a bit careless? Let's see we have 3 choices. These astonishing results somehow misssed being picked up by those of us interesting in such things; Brown is careless in the extreme; or Brown is a liar. Anyone have any other ideas?
We'll try hard to presume the first while someone produces the references for our education in such matters.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by lpetrich, posted 01-14-2004 11:08 PM lpetrich has not replied

  
Taqless
Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 43 of 46 (78568)
01-15-2004 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by lpetrich
01-14-2004 11:08 PM


(I could be wrong but I think there actually were seven mitochondrial "Eve's". Anyone?)
There was only one, but she had several descendants who were the ancestors of various groups of mitochondrial-DNA sequences. Seven of them had lived in or near Europe; these are the "Seven Daughters of Eve", the title of a book on research into this subject.
Yes, seven, but there were actually more women around at the time it is my understanding that "her" (I forget Bryan Sykes name) mtDNA is the one whose descendants survived to present day. A minor distinction, but....considering the need to reduce confusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by lpetrich, posted 01-14-2004 11:08 PM lpetrich has not replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 44 of 46 (78600)
01-15-2004 6:13 AM


I go away for a week and everyone decides to post on my thread... sorry I'm so late posting back.
That whole thing about the solar system and stars evolving - I should have said that the ToE has no relevence for them, as Walt Brown seems to think. Therefore they do not 'evolve' as such. As for the mountain ranges - it was rightly pointed out that some mountains form by volcanic activity. I know this, but I decided to just say tectonics as a root cause rather than go into a long explanation. (Nice to know that people are ready to catch stuff like that, though.)
quote:
Is this guy actually saying that, since science allegedly can't exlain them, earthquakes are caused by God?
This cracked me up. Yes, he appears to be saying this, despite the fact that science can explain how earthquakes happen.
I suppose that we have indeed answered most of the 20 questions - who'd like to email Walt with the good news?
The Rock Hound

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 46 (78741)
01-15-2004 9:07 PM


Andes Mountains built by plate tectonics, not volcanism
I checked on that subject, and the Andes are the result of plate tectonics, not volcanism. Those mountains are atop a subducting plate, which explains the volcanoes in them, but they are mostly a tectonic, not a volcanic feature. Something like the mountains of western North America.
Page not found | St. Edward's University in Austin, Texas

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-15-2004 11:49 PM lpetrich has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024