Skip to content

ExpatSingapore

Home Message Board Contact Us Search

ExpatSingapore Message Board 13 February 2012, 14:57:33 pm *
Username: Password: (or Register)
 
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 58
  Print  
Author Topic: Science Disproves Evolution  (Read 72206 times)
Old Mike
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3999


View Profile
« Reply #345 on: 03 December 2009, 13:30:42 pm »

I take your point. I've been trying to point them in a better direction but it does seem a bit pointless at this point in time. Roll Eyes
Logged
ExpatSingapore Message Board
« Reply #345 on: 03 December 2009, 13:30:42 pm »



 Logged
God himself
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 659



View Profile WWW
« Reply #346 on: 03 December 2009, 22:57:15 pm »

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=yjO4duhMRZk
Logged

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." <B>—George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004 </B>
Joseph27
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1504



View Profile
« Reply #347 on: 04 December 2009, 13:46:11 pm »

This discussion has gone on too long but really it useless because it lends too much credence to deniers and their silly claims...   I like how Dawkins compares them to holocaust deniers....  we know it happened and it is not worth debating because it conveys an undue sense of legitimacy to their arguments.  Evolution is undeniable – if you want to argue, how about you start defending your religious claims...   at present all intelligent design proponents do is point out small weaknesses akin to saying that the gauge size on the tracks to concentration camps weren’t sufficient to carry the numbers claimed...  You don’t argue with these people, you simply demonstrate the evidence and those who are too blind to see can go off and play with their rosary beads.   
Logged

"truth is a group of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms; a sum of human relation which is poetically and rhetorically intensified, metamorphosed and adored so that after a long time it is then codified in the binding canon."
Pahu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 479



View Profile
« Reply #348 on: 08 December 2009, 7:14:50 am »

Molten Earth? 1

For decades, textbooks have taught that the early Earth was molten, because it formed by meteoritic bombardment. If so, the heat released by the impacts would have melted the entire Earth many times over. (a). 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 (b). Therefore, the entire Earth was never molten and did not form by meteoritic bombardment.

a. “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.

b. 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 extremely hot salt 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 evolutionists visualize. On pages 108–140 and 385–390, 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 throughout 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.
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Old Mike
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3999


View Profile
« Reply #349 on: 08 December 2009, 10:05:57 am »

“. (a). 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 (b). Therefore, the entire Earth was never molten and did not form by meteoritic bombardment.”

It is a well known fact that metals dissolve in each other. These solutions are called ALLOYS.
Do this simple experiment:
Take a glass and half fill it with water.
Put three teaspoons of sugar into the glass. The sugar, being heavier than water, sinks to the bottom.
Using a spoon, stir until the sugar dissolves. Cover the glass and put it in an ant free place and let it stand for a week.
Then take a straw, lift off the cover and suck up the water from the bottom of the glass. If a above was true the water at the bottom of the glass would be much sweeter that that at the top, because sugar is heavier than water.
If the whole glass is equally sweet then a above is wrong and so is b.
Do the experiment. Don’t believe all you read.


“a. “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. “

The worthy George W. Makes several false assumptions.
i)   We know the mass and relative velocity of the proto-earth and the impactor. In fact we know none of these so George .W. is making assumptions to fit the conclusion he wants to draw.
ii)   All the energy of the impact or is converted into heat and the heat is all transferred to the new combination.
This is contrary to what is observed. At the point of impact extremely high temperatures are reached causing a great deal of energy to be radiated into space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff's_law_of_thermal_radiation
iii) Substantial amounts of material are ejected into space after such an impact. Just look at the craters on the moon.

iii)   The momentum of the impactor would be shared by the proto earth  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
Thus not all of the kinetic energy would have been dissipated as heat.

Even if all the good George W. was correct, all it would mean would be the earth had been melted several times. It would cool down rapidly after each impact. See Kirchhoff’s law above.



“b. 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.”

This sentence seems to be a waste of space.
In fact, as this article shows, gold is found associated with long extinct volcanoes
http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1315736.html


“Suppose extremely hot salt water (932°F or 500°C) circulated under the crust—a crust that had never been molten.”

This theory has since been refuted:

Scientists Discover That 40 Percent Of The World's Gold Is 3 Billion Years Old
ScienceDaily (Sep. 16, 2002) — Scientists have for the first time directly dated gold from South Africa's Witwatersrand gold deposits, source of more than 40 percent of all gold so far mined on Earth.
An international team of geologists led by the University of Arizona has discovered that the gold is around 3 billion years old -- older than its surrounding conglomerate rock by a quarter of a billion years.
More, their state-of-the-art dating technique shows that the gold deposits formed along with crustal rock directly from the mantle beneath South Africa. The event at this magnitude appears to be unique in Earth's geologic history.
Jason Kirk, Joaquin Ruiz and John Chesley of the UA, John Walshe of Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, and Gavin England of the University of Edinburgh report on it in the Sept. 13 issue of Science.
The Witwatersrand gold is found in a sedimentary basin. But the age and origin of the gold has been hotly debated. One theory argues that the gold was carried into the basin by sedimentary processes. A conflicting theory holds that the gold was emplaced by hydrothermal fluids -- the equivalent of hot springs -- from the upper continental crust.
The new results confirm that the Witwatersrand gold deposits are "placer" deposits -- that millions of years ago, ancient rivers carried gold particles, along with sand and silt, into the Witerwatersrand basin -- then a great lake -- possibly from granite mountains to the north and southwest.
Over time and under pressure, the gold-bearing sediments solidified into rock, forming the rich gold-bearing reefs of South Africa's 'golden arc,' which have been mined since their discovery in 1886.
The UA scientists' new findings confirm that the gold first formed in older rocks, rocks that formed when upwelling mantle formed a major piece of South African continental crust called the Kaapvaal craton. Cratons are areas of Earth's crust that have remained tectonically stable over time. The Kaapvaal craton is one of the oldest known.
Later, the gold was weathered and reconcentrated in the Witwatersrand paleolake sediments.
Kirk is studying the age and extent of gold deposits around the world for a UA doctoral geosciences degree. He uses a rhenium-osmium isotope gold-dating technique developed by Ruiz at the university's NTIMS laboratory.
Ruiz, dean of the UA College of Science and professor of geosciences, was instrumental in developing the Negative Thermal Ionization Mass Spectrometer (NTIMS) with a grant from the W. M. Keck Foundation. The laboratory is one of the few of its kind in the world.
"This is precisely the kind of research that I envisioned when I was building the laboratory," Ruiz said. "The analytical capabilities of the W.M. Keck Laboratory is such that we will continue to discover aspects of how the Earth worked, questions that previously we could only dream of."
Gold and other minerals contain a rare metallic chemical element called rhenium. Rhenium-187 is the radioactive form of the element. NTIMS directly dates minerals by counting the number of their rhenium-187 and osmium-187 atoms. Rhenium-187 has a half -life of 45 billion years, or about 10 times the age of our solar system. It decays into osmium-187. So by determining the ratio of radioactive rhenium-187 to daughter osmium-187 atoms, scientists can directly calculate when the minerals formed.
"One of the reasons I think our results are so significant is that the rhenium-osmium system can be used directly on gold, and can also tell us if the gold came from the mantle or the crust," Kirk said.
There is relatively more rhenium than osmium in Earth's crust, but relatively more osmium than rhenium in Earth's mantle.
"Witwatersrand has a clear mantle signature," Kirk said. "It's possible that this mantle signature is so big because at 3 billion years ago, Earth's mantle might have been hotter, and richer in gold at this particular spot, compared to more recent deposits."
People, understandably, are keenly interested in why South Africa has been so blessed with gold. The Witwatersrand gold fields have yielded a half-trillion dollars' worth of gold since 1886.
"Estimates are that there's another half-trillion dollars in gold still to be mined, and that's a lot of money," Kirk said.


Logged
Pahu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 479



View Profile
« Reply #350 on: 09 December 2009, 5:07:30 am »

“. (a). 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 (b). Therefore, the entire Earth was never molten and did not form by meteoritic bombardment.”

It is a well known fact that metals dissolve in each other. These solutions are called ALLOYS.
Do this simple experiment:
Take a glass and half fill it with water.
Put three teaspoons of sugar into the glass. The sugar, being heavier than water, sinks to the bottom.
Using a spoon, stir until the sugar dissolves. Cover the glass and put it in an ant free place and let it stand for a week.
Then take a straw, lift off the cover and suck up the water from the bottom of the glass. If a above was true the water at the bottom of the glass would be much sweeter that that at the top, because sugar is heavier than water.
If the whole glass is equally sweet then a above is wrong and so is b.
Do the experiment. Don’t believe all you read.

Is sugar a dense, nonreactive chemical element?
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Pahu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 479



View Profile
« Reply #351 on: 09 December 2009, 5:10:32 am »

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) (c). However, according to radioactive dating, those zircons formed on an extremely young Earth, when, according to evolutionists, it should have been molten (exceeding 1,800°F)—an obvious contradiction. Either the molten Earth idea or the radioactive dating method is wrong; perhaps both ideas 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 (d). If Earth did not evolve by meteoritic bombardment, it may have begun as one large body.

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

d. “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.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences5.html#wp1073517
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Old Mike
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3999


View Profile
« Reply #352 on: 09 December 2009, 7:47:35 am »

Quote
Is sugar a dense, nonreactive chemical element?
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar
Logged
Old Mike
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3999


View Profile
« Reply #353 on: 09 December 2009, 8:17:40 am »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_track_dating

gives a good explanation of zircon dating methods.

This article gives a comprehensive explanation of the formation of the earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth

Quote
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
The concentration opf xenon in the atmosphere is 0.086 parts per million.
Even if the concentration were 100 times what it is, that would still be only 8.6 parts per million. Scarcely "very different"

Logged
Pahu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 479



View Profile
« Reply #354 on: 18 December 2009, 3:52:10 am »

Evolving Planets? 1

Contrary to popular opinion, planets should not form from the mutual gravitational attraction of particles orbiting the Sun (a). Orbiting particles are much more likely to be scattered or expelled by their gravitational interactions than they are to be pulled together. Experiments have shown that colliding particles almost always fragment rather than stick together (b). (Similar difficulties relate to a moon forming from particles orbiting a planet.)

Despite these problems, let us assume that pebble-size to moon-size particles somehow evolved. “Growing a planet” by many small collisions will produce an almost nonspinning planet, because spins imparted by impacts will be largely self-canceling (c).

a. Very special conditions are required to capture and then merge orbiting bodies.

b. John F. Kerridge and James F. Vedder, “An Experimental Approach to Circumsolar Accretion,” Symposium on the Origin of the Solar System (Paris, France: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1972), pp. 282–283.

“It turns out to be surprisingly difficult for planetesimals to accrete mass during even the most gentle collisions.” Erik Asphaug, “The Small Planets,” Scientific American, Vol. 282, May 2000, p. 54.

c. Tim Folger, “This Battered Earth,” Discover, January 1994, p. 33.

“‘We came to the conclusion,’ says Lissauer, ‘that if you accrete planets from a uniform disk of planetesimals, [the observed] prograde rotation just can’t be explained,’ The simulated bombardment leaves a growing planet spinning once a week at most, not once a day.”   Richard A. Kerr, “Theoreticians Are Putting a New Spin on the Planets,” Science, Vol. 258, 23 October 1992, p. 548.

Luke Dones and Scott Tremaine, “Why Does the Earth Spin Forward?” Science, Vol. 259, 15 January 1993, pp. 350–354.

Some believe that the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) gained their spins through a few very large and improbable impacts. However, this appeal to large or improbable impacts will not work for the giant outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune), which have the most spin energy. Such impacts on these gaseous planets would be even more improbable, because they move more slowly and are so far from the center of the solar system. Besides, impacts from large rocks would not account for the composition of the giant planets—basically hydrogen and helium.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences6.html#wp1039116
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Pahu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 479



View Profile
« Reply #355 on: 18 December 2009, 4:02:13 am »

Evolving Planets? 2

The growth of a large, gaseous planet (such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune) far from the central star is especially difficult for evolutionists to explain for several reasons (d):

a. Gases dissipate rapidly in the vacuum of outer space, especially the lightest two gases—hydrogen and helium, which comprise most of the giant planets.

b. Because gas molecules orbiting a star do not gravitationally pull in (or merge with) other gas molecules in the orbiting ring, a rocky planet, several times larger than Earth, must first form to attract all the gas gravitationally. This must happen very quickly, before the gas dissipates (e). (Jupiter’s hydrogen and helium is 300 times more massive than the entire Earth.)

c. Stars like our Sun—even those which evolutionists say are young—do not have enough orbiting hydrogen or helium to form one Jupiter (f).

Computer simulations show that Uranus and Neptune could not evolve anywhere near their present locations (g). The planets that are found outside our solar system also contradict the theories for how planets supposedly evolve.

Based on demonstrable science, gaseous planets and the rest of the solar system did not evolve.

d. “Building Jupiter has long been a problem to theorists.” George W. Wetherill, “How Special Is Jupiter?” Nature, Vol. 373, 9 February 1995, p. 470.

“Talk about a major embarrassment for planetary scientists. There, blazing away in the late evening sky, are Jupiter and Saturn—the gas giants that account for 93% of the solar system’s planetary mass—and no one has a satisfying explanation of how they were made.” Richard A. Kerr, “A Quickie Birth for Jupiters and Saturns,” Science, Vol. 298, 29 November 2002, p. 1698.

e. This idea has a further difficulty. If, as the solar system began to form, a large, rocky planet quickly formed near Jupiter’s orbit, why didn’t a rocky planet form in the adjacent asteroid belt where we see more than 200,000 rocky bodies (asteroids) today?

f. B. Zuckerman et al., “Inhibition of Giant-Planet Formation by Rapid Gas Depletion around Young Stars,” Nature, Vol. 373, 9 February 1995, pp. 494–496.

g. “In the best simulations of the process [of evolving Uranus and Neptune], cores for Uranus and Neptune fail to form at their present positions in even 4.5 billion years, [what evolutionists believe is] the lifetime of the solar system. ‘Things just grow too slowly’ in the outermost solar system, says Weidenschilling. ‘We’ve tried to form Uranus and Neptune at their present locations and failed miserably.’” Stuart Weidenschilling, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Shaking Up a Nursery of Giant Planets,” Science, Vol. 286, 10 December 1999, p. 2054.

Renu Malhotra, “Chaotic Planet Formation,” Nature, Vol. 402, 9 December 1999, pp. 599–600.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences6.html#wp1039116
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Joseph27
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1504



View Profile
« Reply #356 on: 19 December 2009, 8:59:26 am »

HuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuh

The material is meaningless.... the argument nonsensical.........  oh yeah creation science....   almost as reliable a field of study as elf biology and their relationship with santa claus...   but that wont stop you from continually posting the same rubbish
Logged

"truth is a group of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms; a sum of human relation which is poetically and rhetorically intensified, metamorphosed and adored so that after a long time it is then codified in the binding canon."
Joseph27
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1504



View Profile
« Reply #357 on: 19 December 2009, 17:59:37 pm »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX2Tw1qv6Dk&feature=sub

My favorite Atheist....
Logged

"truth is a group of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms; a sum of human relation which is poetically and rhetorically intensified, metamorphosed and adored so that after a long time it is then codified in the binding canon."
Pahu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 479



View Profile
« Reply #358 on: 24 December 2009, 6:33:57 am »

Planetary Rings

Planetary rings have long been associated with claims that planets evolved. Supposedly, after planets formed from a swirling dust cloud, rings remained, as seen around the giant planets: Saturn, Uranus, Jupiter, and Neptune (a). Therefore, some believe that because we see rings, planets must have evolved (b).
 
Actually, rings have nothing to do with a planet’s origin. Rings form when material is expelled from a moon by a volcano, a geyser, or the impact of a comet or meteorite (c). Debris that escapes a moon because of its weak gravity and a giant planet’s gigantic gravity then orbits that planet as a ring. If these rings were not periodically replenished, they would be dispersed in less than 10,000 years (d). Because a planet’s gravity pulls escaped particles away from its moons, particles orbiting a planet could never form moons—as evolutionists assert.

a. William K. Hartmann, Moons and Planets, 3rd edition (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1993), p. 143.

b. Similar faulty logic claims that, because we see comets, asteroids, and meteoroids, the solar system must have evolved.

c. “Geysers on Enceladus replenish the E ring.” Richard A. Kerr, “At Last, a Supportive Parent for Saturn’s Youngest Ring,” Science, Vol. 309, 9 September 2005, p. 1660.

“Saturn’s moons are bombarded by comets or micro-meteoroids. Those collisions knock off ice particles and send them into orbit around Saturn, forming rings.” Ron Cowen, “Ring Shots,” Science News, Vol. 170, 21 October 2006, p. 263.

This has also been observed for Jupiter’s rings. Jupiter has a few moons large enough to be hit frequently by meteoroids or comets, small enough to have little gravity so the debris can escape the moon, and close enough to Jupiter that tidal effects can spread the moon’s debris into rings. [See Ron Cowen, “Mooning Over the Dust Rings of Jupiter,” Science News, Vol. 154, 12 September 1998, pp. 182–183. See also Gretchen Vogel, “Tiny Moon Source of Jupiter’s Ring,” Science, Vol. 281, 25 September 1998, p. 1951.]

d. “Yet nonstop erosion poses a difficult problem for the very existence of Saturn’s opaque rings—the expected bombardment rate would pulverize the entire system in only 10,000 years! Most of this material is merely redeposited elsewhere in the rings, but even if only a tiny fraction is truly lost (as ionized vapor, for example), it becomes a real trick to maintain the rings since the formation of the solar system [as imagined by evolutionists].” Jeffrey N. Cuzzi, “Ringed Planets: Still Mysterious—II,” Sky & Telescope, Vol. 69, January 1985, p. 22.

Jeffrey N. Cuzzi, “Saturn: Jewel of the Solar System,” The Planetary Report, July/August 1989, pp. 12–15.

Also, water in Saturn’s rings is rapidly ionized and transported along magnetic lines to certain latitudes on Saturn. The Hubble Space Telescope has detected this water concentration in Saturn’s atmosphere. [See Richard A. Kerr, “Slow Leak Seen in Saturn’s Rings,” Science, Vol. 274, 29 November 1996, p. 1468.]

Richard A. Simpson and Ellis D. Miner, “Uranus: Beneath That Bland Exterior,” The Planetary Report, July/August 1989, pp. 16–18.

“Saturn’s rings (as well as the recently discovered ring system around Uranus) are unstable, therefore recent formations.” S. K. Vsekhsvyatsky, “Comets and the Cosmogony of the Solar System,” Comets, Asteroids, Meteorites, editor A. H. Delsemme (Toledo, Ohio: The University of Toledo, 1977), p. 473.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences7.html#wp1011563
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
God himself
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 659



View Profile WWW
« Reply #359 on: 24 December 2009, 11:39:31 am »

Fascinating.

But why did god do this?
Logged

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." <B>—George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004 </B>
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 58
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.15 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines