Science Disproves Evolution - Pahu's Pile of Preachy PooPoo

[AtomJack]

How much copy-pasta is he allowed before he gets the boot? Not even a good chew-toy- he talks too much, while actually saying very little.

[Smellyoldgit]

The fool is already well beyond ban-hammer requirements, but as his copy/paste crap is contained in one thread, we keep him for comedy and mocking purposes only. It says a lot about these assclowns that they only read & spew standard creationist vomit, fully rebutted by real scientists over many years - but still waste millions in law courts getting smacked down 99.9% of the time. Wankers

[AtomJack]

So, we have JJ in one thread and this poohoo guy here in this thread. Is poohoo restrained to one thread only, like JJ? At least we'll know where to find the chew toys.

[Smellyoldgit]

Yup - many of our historic trolls spend their early days shit spraying, but most tend to fuck off once they get their own litter tray. However, the denser of the dense never quite seem to get it ....

[AtomJack]

I'd hate to be that thick. But then part of being that thick is not being able to comprehend the density thereof.

[Pahu]

Galaxy Clusters

Hundreds of rapidly moving galaxies often cluster tightly together. Their relative velocities, as inferred by the redshifts of their light, are so high that these clusters should be flying apart, because each cluster’s visible mass is much too small to hold its galaxies together gravitationally (a). Because galaxies within clusters are so close together, they have not been flying apart for very long.

A similar statement can be made concerning many stars in spiral galaxies and gas clouds that surround some galaxies (b). These stars and gas clouds have such high relative velocities that they should have broken their “gravitational bonds” long ago if they were billions of years old. If the redshifted starlight always indicates a star’s velocity, then a billion-year-old universe is completely inconsistent with what is observed.

These observations have led some to conclude, not that the universe is young, but that unseen, undetected mass—called dark matter—is holding these stars and galaxies together. For this to work, about 80% of the mass in the universe must be invisible—and hidden in the right places. However, many experiments have shown that the needed “missing mass” does not exist (c). Some researchers are still searching, because the alternative is a young universe. See Missing Mass.

a. “In 1933 the late Fritz Zwicky pointed out that the galaxies of the Coma cluster are moving too fast: there is not enough visible mass in the galaxies to bind the cluster together by gravity. Subsequent observations verified this ‘missing’ mass in other clusters.” M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe,” Science, Vol. 219, 4 March 1983, p. 1050.

b. Faye Flam, “NASA PR: Hype or Public Education?” Science, Vol. 260, 4 June 1993, pp. 1417–1418.

“It turns out that in almost every case the velocities of the individual galaxies are high enough to allow them to escape from the cluster. In effect, the clusters are ‘boiling.’ This statement is certainly true if we assume that the only gravitational force present is that exerted by visible matter, but it is true even if we assume that every galaxy in the cluster, like the Milky Way, is surrounded by a halo of dark matter that contains 90 percent of the mass of the galaxy.” Trefil, p. 93.

Gerardus D. Bouw, “Galaxy Clusters and the Mass Anomaly,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 14, September 1977, pp. 108–112.

Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible, pp. 179–185.

Silk, The Big Bang, pp. 188–191.

Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies.

Halton M. Arp, “NGC-1199,” Astronomy, Vol. 6, September 1978, p. 15.

Halton M. Arp, “Three New Cases of Galaxies with Large Discrepant Redshifts,” Astrophysical Journal, 15 July 1980, pp. 469–474.

c. A huge dust ring has been observed orbiting two galaxies. The measured orbital velocity of this ring allows the calculation of the mass of the two galaxies and any hidden mass. There was little hidden mass. Statistical analyses of 155 other small galactic groups also suggest that there is not enough hidden mass to hold them together. [See Stephen E. Schneider, “Neutral Hydrogen in the M96 Group: The Galaxies and the Intergalactic Ring,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 343, 1 August 1989, pp. 94–106.]

Conclusion

All dating techniques, especially the few that suggest vast ages, presume that a process observed today has proceeded at a known, but not necessarily constant, rate. This assumption may be grossly inaccurate. Projecting present processes and rates far back in time is more likely to produce errors than extrapolation over a much shorter time. Furthermore, a much better understanding usually exists for dating “clocks” that show a young Earth and a young universe.

This contrary evidence understandably disturbs those who have always been told that the Earth is billions of years old. Can you imagine how disturbing such evidence is to confirmed evolutionists?

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Sinfidel]

[Sinfidel]

Pahu wrote

Right!

And here's how YOU got here.....

[Smellyoldgit]

Walt Brown's CV.

Walter T. Brown is an engineer, young earth creationist Kent Hovind-style, and director of his own ministry with the Orwellian name Center for Scientific Creation (which seems to consist of Walt Brown), for which he works full time as a ”researcher”, writer, and speaker. According to his self-published book ”Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood”, Brown has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from MIT, and he may be considered one of the leaders of the creation science movement (this excellent overview over the creation movement at least awards him a relatively prominent place).

In 1998, Brown was appointed to a committee reviewing Arizona's state science standards, but despite his attempts he failed to remove evolution from the Arizona state science standards.

His main publication is his already mentioned book ”In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood,” in which he argues for flood geology, claims that the works of other scientists does not support evolution (which, as expected, is primarily based on misrepresenting them), and attempts to explain parts of reality that fits poorly with the Bible (astronomy, for instance). His general strategy is to argue that moderen science cannot explain these astronomical and geological phenomena, even though it can, and that therefore goddidit. Some criticism can be found here. His ”20 questions for evolutionists” are dealt with here, and his own claim that evolutionists refuse to debate him, therefore he is right, is dealt with here.

Brown’s primary positive contribution is his hydroplate theory – according to his bio he learnt some geology after(!) developing the theory – which is remarkably silly.

Brown apparently maintains rather contentious relations with other creationist organizations; Answers in Genesis has a standing offer to Brown to publish some of his material in their ”journals”, though Brown has thus far declined; the old earth creationist organization Answers in Creation has published material rebutting Brown's hydroplate theory, on the other hand, and The Christian American Scientific Affiliation (which doesn’t seem to be creationist) has debunked Brown’s video ”God's Power and Scriptures Authority”.

Bob Enyart’s bulldog, the incredibly dense and dishonest Will Duffy, thinks Walt Brown is one of the greatest scientists ever, and Brown is taken to be an authority on evolution by Conservapedia despite his complete lack of competence or training in the field, and anauthority on astronomy by others, despite his rather startling lack of even minimal understanding of the field. The WND has uncritically published some of his nonsense, such as his claims that Noah’s flood created the asteroids and comets in the solar system (discussed here).

Summary:

Babbling beefhead and denialist whose main techniques are, as one would expect, ignorance, misrepresentation, goddidit, and – if everything else fails – appeal to ”worldviews”. He may not be the most influential creationist out there, but is often pulled out by the densest members of the creationist movement and probably does have some negative impact on the world.

[dogpet]

Creationist stories about 4th century BCE vegan raptors are comedy gold.
Shame none of the dimwits on here can form sentences well enough to tell us about it in their own words.

[Sinfidel]

Pahu wrote

You did a nice job of twisting my words to mean something I did not mean. I guess that is to be expected given your mentality (read the original).

Gee, where have we seen this before! QUOTE them, and they claim you're twisting their words. And them come the ad hominems.

[Sinfidel]

Pahu wrote

First, God has revealed He has always existed. He had no beginning.

Then explain Mary, mother of God. How does someone who had no beginning have a mother, dumbass?

[Smellyoldgit]

Sinfidel wrote

Then explain Mary, mother of God. How does someone who had no beginning have a mother, dumbass?

Jesus fuck, now you've done it - that'll be another 15 links to Walt Brown and an exhibition in ducking, diving, obfuscation and a new level of terminal bullshit!

[Pahu]

Sinfidel wrote

Then explain Mary, mother of God. How does someone who had no beginning have a mother, dumbass?

The phrase "Mary, mother of God" is not found in the Bible. It is a man-made phrase to describe the incarnation of Jesus, who is God, in the flesh to shed His blood far our salvation from the consequences of our sins.

God has no beginning, but Jesus, in the flesh, did have.

[Sinfidel]

Pahu wrote

The phrase "Mary, mother of God" is not found in the Bible. It is a man-made phrase to describe the incarnation of Jesus, who is God, in the flesh to shed His blood far our salvation from the consequences of our sins.

God has no beginning, but Jesus, in the flesh, did have.

What REALLY happened to Jesus....