[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Creationism/Evolution
See other Creationism/Evolution Articles

Title: Creationist stakes $10,000 on contest between Bible and evolution
Source: The Guardian
URL Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201 ... -trial-bible-genesis-evolution
Published: Mar 27, 2013
Author: Amanda Holepunch
Post Date: 2013-03-27 15:33:40 by Thunderbird
Keywords: Creation, Evolution, Trial
Views: 67059
Comments: 104

A California creationist is offering a $10,000 challenge to anyone who can prove in front of a judge that science contradicts the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.

Dr Joseph Mastropaolo, who says he has set up the contest, the Literal Genesis Trial, in the hope of improving the quality of arguments between creationists and evolutionists, has pledged to put $10,000 of his own money into an escrow account before the debate. His competitor would be expected to do the same. The winner would take the $20,000 balance.

The argument would not be made in a formal court, but under an alternative dispute resolution model known as a minitrial. Mastropaolo said he would present the argument in favor of a literal interpretation of the creation story once he had found a willing scientist to argue that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is more scientific.

News World news Creationism

Creationist stakes $10,000 on contest between Bible and evolution

Creator of Literal Genesis Trial believes people who argue in favor of evolution are at a scientific disadvantage

Share Tweet this Email

Amanda Holpuch guardian.co.uk, Monday 25 March 2013 15.46 EDT Jump to comments (437)

creationism A scene from the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. Photograph: Jeff Haynes/AFP/Getty Images

A California creationist is offering a $10,000 challenge to anyone who can prove in front of a judge that science contradicts the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.

Dr Joseph Mastropaolo, who says he has set up the contest, the Literal Genesis Trial, in the hope of improving the quality of arguments between creationists and evolutionists, has pledged to put $10,000 of his own money into an escrow account before the debate. His competitor would be expected to do the same. The winner would take the $20,000 balance.

The argument would not be made in a formal court, but under an alternative dispute resolution model known as a minitrial. Mastropaolo said he would present the argument in favor of a literal interpretation of the creation story once he had found a willing scientist to argue that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is more scientific.

"They [evolutionists] are not stupid people, they are bright, but they are bright enough to know there is no scientific evidence they can give in a minitrial," Mastropaolo said.

A minitrial differs from a regular trial because it does not need to be held in a courthouse and does not require the presence of traditional court figures. Mastropaolo plans to have a bailiff and court reporter in attendance, along with the judge. Contest rules state that evidence must be scientific, which means it is "objective, valid, reliable and calibrated".

--snip--

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 71.

#1. To: Thunderbird (#0) (Edited)

science contradicts the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis

The bible shouldn't be read literally. Israelites: We wandered in the desert for 40 years. Native Americas: We haven't had rain in many moons. 40 years, many moons -- both mean a really long time. God created the universe in 6 days. 6 days means a very short time, because god is powerful. They are expressions, not accurate measures of time.

All evidence points to the earth being about 4.5 billion years old, in a universe that's 13.8 billion years old. There is no evidence, anywhere that demonstrates that the earth and universe are 6,000 years old. NONE.

Of course, everything we see (including us) could be a computer simulation that is 10 seconds old -- with all of our memories, experiences, and everything we see around us pre-programmed in before the program started up 10 seconds ago. 10 seconds, 6,000 years, both are a real scientific possibility.

However, from our perspective, living in this universe, science is very clear about the age of the universe -- including brand new evidence from high resolution scans of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

We have to go with what we can prove through science.

jwpegler  posted on  2013-03-27   19:46:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: jwpegler (#1)

All evidence points to the earth being about 4.5 billion years old, in a universe that's 13.8 billion years old.

All evidence points to a young earth. Just like God said. His word is accurate.

You said we have to go with what we can prove. You can't prove any of the comments you made. Not one.

A K A Stone  posted on  2013-03-27   19:51:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: A K A Stone (#2)

All evidence points to a young earth.

There is no evidence for a young earth. NONE.

There is tons of evidence for the universe being 13.8 billion years old and the earth being 4.5 billions of years old. The evidence includes, but is not limited to: the rate the universe is expanding, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the observable life-cycle of stars of various types, the newly observable life-cycle of exo-planet formation, the geological record on earth, and much more.

The vast majority of Christians reject this young earth nonsense. Young earth believers are a small minority within the Christian community. They shouldn't be taken seriously because they reject all scientific evidence out-of-hand, just like you are doing here.

jwpegler  posted on  2013-03-27   20:06:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: jwpegler (#3)

There is no evidence for a young earth. NONE.

That is the dumbest thing I have ever seen you utter. The earth is young and there is evidence for it.

Show me some of your evidnece for a so called old earth. So I can shoot it down.

Lets start with this one.

What came first the penis or the vagina?

A K A Stone  posted on  2013-03-27   20:58:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: A K A Stone (#5)

Show me some of your evidnece for a so called old earth. So I can shoot it down.

I already did, namely:
1.) the rate the universe is expanding
2.) the cosmic microwave background radiation
3.) the observable life-cycle of stars of various types
4.) the newly observable life-cycle of exo-planet formation
5.) the geological record on earth
More....

You on the other hand keep repeating the same thing over and over without mentioning any evidence to support your assertion.

jwpegler  posted on  2013-03-28   0:36:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: jwpegler (#8)

Show me some of your evidnece for a so called old earth. So I can shoot it down.

I already did, namely: 1.) the rate the universe is expanding 2.) the cosmic microwave background radiation 3.) the observable life-cycle of stars of various types 4.) the newly observable life-cycle of exo-planet formation 5.) the geological record on earth More....

Ok you have cut and pasted some list from somewhere. Or maybe you made up the list.

You do realize your list doesn't prove anything.

Now explain if you can how these things prove an old earth.

A K A Stone  posted on  2013-03-28   7:55:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: A K A Stone (#10) (Edited)

Now explain if you can how these things prove an old earth.

The cosmic microwave background radiation...

In the 1940s, physicist George Gamow was the first to realize that, because the universe is all there is, the huge heat from a hot Big Bang could not dissipate in the same way as the heat from a regular explosion and therefore it must still be around today.

In 1948, Gamow's research students, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman argued that because the Big Bang effectively happened everywhere simultaneously, that energy should be equally spread as cosmic microwave background radiation.

In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, of Bell Telephone Laboratories, discovered exactly that. The mysterious microwave static they picked up on their microwave antenna seemed to be coming equally from every direction in the sky, and eventually they realized that this microwave radiation (which has a temperature of about -270°C, marginally above absolute zero) must indeed be the “afterglow” of the Big Bang.

This discovery, perhaps the most important cosmological discovery since Edwin Hubble had shown that we live in an expanding universe, was powerful evidence that our universe had indeed begun in a hot, dense state and had been growing and cooling ever since.

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) was launched in 2001 to measure the cosmic background radiation. Among other things, WMAP has determined the universe to be 13.77 billion years old to within a half percent.

The universe is 13.77 billion years old, not 6,000 years old.

This is called real science -- theory that has been proven by actual observation.

jwpegler  posted on  2013-03-28   20:04:00 ET  (1 image) Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: jwpegler (#20)

And you still haven't answered what came first the penis or the vagina.

For a person to be born it takes two parents. Tell me genius how was a baby born without two parents first.

It is a scientific fact that it takes a male and a female person to produce a child.

Prove to us now oh genius that it happened some other way.

And throwing the virgin birth of Jesus out doesn't cut it either.

A K A Stone  posted on  2013-03-28   20:14:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: A K A Stone (#26)

And you still haven't answered what came first the penis or the vagina.

For a person to be born it takes two parents. Tell me genius how was a baby born without two parents first.

Asexual reproduction came first.

Some species TODAY alternate between the sexual and asexual reproductive strategies.

From WIKIPEDIA:

Some species alternate between the sexual and asexual strategies, an ability known as heterogamy, depending on conditions. Alternation is observed in several rotifer species and a few types of insects, such as aphids which will, under certain conditions, produce eggs that have not gone through meiosis, thus cloning themselves. The cape bee Apis mellifera subsp. capensis can reproduce asexually through a process called thelytoky. A few species of amphibians, reptiles, and birds have a similar ability (see parthenogenesis for examples). For example, the freshwater crustacean Daphnia reproduces by parthenogenesis in the spring to rapidly populate ponds, then switches to sexual reproduction as the intensity of competition and predation increases. Another example are monogonont rotifers of the genus Brachionus, which reproduce via cyclical parthenogenesis: at low population densities females produce asexually and at higher densities a chemical cue accumulates and induces the transition to sexual reproduction. Many protists and fungi alternate between sexual and asexual reproduction.

The world is stranger than you think Stone

jwpegler  posted on  2013-03-28   20:26:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: jwpegler (#32)

Ok you say Asexual reproduction came first.

Ok what did it produce first a penis or a vagina.

Did two separate entities happen to evolve compatible parts? You know a vagina and a penis.

You sound like the wizard of oz.

A K A Stone  posted on  2013-03-28   20:31:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: A K A Stone (#34) (Edited)

You sound like the wizard of oz.

And you sound like Gomer Pyle -- SHAZAMMM!!!! God created the earth in 6 days.

Why didn't he do it in 6 seconds?

jwpegler  posted on  2013-03-28   20:50:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: jwpegler (#36)

God created the earth in 6 days.

Why didn't he do it in 6 seconds?

Yes God created the Earth in 6 days, and the Heavens also.

I don't know why he didn't do it in 6 seconds.

I know that there is a book that claims to be from God. It tells a whole lot of interesting stuff about us humans. It says he created us. It says to test it and prove it. It is an like an anvil that has worn out many hammers.

Like I said earlier it says there was a a worldwide flood. If that really happened I would expect to find the fossil record we have today. That is some proof that the Bible is true. One of many "proofs". The satanic religion of evolution has no explanation for the fossil record.

A K A Stone  posted on  2013-03-28   21:19:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: A K A Stone (#40) (Edited)

he satanic religion of evolution has no explanation for the fossil record.

We're not talking about evolution. We're talking about physics -- the age of the universe.

I agree that evolution has all kinds of problems. The more things we discover, the more problems evolution has.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. We're talking about the age of the universe.

Unlike evolution, the more we learn about the universe, the more the standard model of physics is PROVEN correct. The universe is 13.8 billion years old. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. There is NO question about this.

Again Stone, you don't have any real evidence to support your views, so you change the subject to evolution, which has a growing number of issues.

Pitiful.

jwpegler  posted on  2013-03-29   15:20:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: jwpegler, A K A Stone, ALL Creationists and Evolutionists (#49)

We're not talking about evolution. We're talking about physics -- the age of the universe.

I agree that evolution has all kinds of problems. The more things we discover, the more problems evolution has.

And in BOTH cases you haven't a SCIENTIFIC leg to stand on. That's right - the cult of science can't "prove" a damned thing -- the establishment high preists of science just refuse to admit it and junk their fake "facts" (like "man-made global warming.") Why not? Human nature. Not many are willing to admit their entire belief system is wrong.

Of course the ENTIRE Theory of Evolution is a fraud. And so is the Big Bang. Don't even go there -- REAL scientists no longer want to embarrass themselves by talking about either any more. In respected scientist Michael Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box', he reveals an admission that Darwin basically was lunatic grasping at straws while noting that the tiniest living organism and its processes are MORE complicated than the workings of a entire city. The more scientists examine life and this Universe the MORE they accept irrefutable evidence of a Creator.

Unlike evolution, the more we learn about the universe, the more the standard model of physics is PROVEN correct. The universe is 13.8 billion years old. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. There is NO question about this.

Again. The respective age of the universe AND earth (as Stone has already contended) are also unproven BS. But it's not your fault -- you, like scientists are just parroting the cards of dogma you've been handed down as "fact" in whatever area explaining the age of the Earth....OR Universe. Maybe I can help clarify or illuminate the issues and offer a conduit of knowledge. Scientific knowledge. And yes, the Bible is VERY helpful in providing (or reinforcing) evidence of a Young Earth. Read that info in the link near the bottom of this post if you're interested. If not, then you're really not curious or open-minded about up until recently has been one of THE great mysteries.

Firstly, dating methods: Erroneous, and totally inaccurate. But that has been the primary basis of determining the age of the earth, hasn't it? We never hear how inaccurate the different methods actually are, do we?

This planet before the Great Flood (a world-wide proven scientific event) was a radically different planet. Science (through fossil records) sez there was once evidence of warm weather and abundance of life at both poles. Science has found sea shells on Mount Everest. All animals (through fossils) were generally found to be MUCH larger in the past; The Bible (yes, the Bible) also tells us man was larger as well - AND lived longer. How can that be? Doesn't that kinda break all the "rules" and laws of nature? So what kind of planet was it and what happened to change both the geography, weather, flora, fauna? And is it possible many "laws of nature" were indeed affected by the event of the Great Flood?

THE GREAT FLOOD. Oh, and you'll appreciate this, Stone. The Bible of course tells us and Noah about the rain, which came in torrents. But people miss THIS explanation for the Flood covering the planet: Genesis 7:11 -- "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Get that? "The founts of the deep" -- God busted open and released the subterranean waters of the planet to help create The Great Flood!

Fossils -- all and any of them -- can only be formed when life forms are swept away quickly and buried quickly under tremendous force BEFORE it can decay. It happened ONCE. During the Cataclysm of The Great Flood. Animal and plants created strata which are NOT "millions" of years old but....yes, thousands. The Bible IS right. AGAIN.

Oddly, below the sedimentary strata created by the Great Flood is the pre-Cambrian period. Guess what? THERE ARE ZERO FOSSILS AT THAT LEVEL OR BELOW! No fossils embedded in granite either. What's that also prove? It proves that BEFORE the Great Flood dinosaurs lived. No, NOT 65 million years ago during the Triassic Era (btw, the "Eras" assigned to dinosaurs and all "prehistoric life" is based again on the strata created BY the Great Flood.) Thus the "Cambrian" represents the bottom layer of strata washed away from The Flood, and the Pliocene Era the next to last. The faster mammals and smaller reptiles made it to the higher ground of the highest strata (found in the Pliocene), while the slower animals (like dinosaurs) are found in lower -- again all in neat layers consider by science as "eras" of what them claim is millions of years. Of note -- these strata are not found at uniform levels around the world.

The Pliocene Era is the most active days of the new earth when the Flood ended. As the waters receded mountain chains began lifting up and forming as continents rose, ocean basins dropped (pre-Flood, seas were shallow and...there were no mountains (according to the Bible.) The quick process of the earth changing is referred to as "Catastrophism" (as opposed to science's claim of "Uniformitarianism" -- the gradual millions/billions years of change in the earth.)

Needless the say, the planet underwent a TOTAL and radical makeover. The planet was literally busting at its seams. All the volcanoes above and below the seas began bellowing and spewing lava, smoke and pollutants, helping to create more land....and The Ice Age. More animals died off and became extinct as the earth cooled, the air became fairly toxic, and sunlight was impeded. But by then, the atmosphere changed, air pressure changed, the magnetism of the earth changed, the pole position may have been altered...apparently resulting in a further reduction of flora and fauna...AND the shrinkage and radically lowered age expectation of both animal AND man. As per the Bible, man often live to be 500 years old BEFORE the Flood.

THERE WAS NO METEOR that caused the death of dinosaurs and Ice Age (which was really QUITE recent.) So how old IS the earth? According to the Bible (and science)...life appears to be no more than 6,000-8,000 years old. The planet and universe? Much younger than we think, but EVERYONE is just guessing (especially since all those dating methods are based on faulty baselines and rates of decay.)

To both of you and all: For fascinating detailed info in a scientific (pegler, you will especially appreciate this - even as a secular evolutionist) book called, The Evolution Handbook. OR, you can peruse the book as a FREE download:

http://evolutionfacts.com/Downloads.htm

By Chapter:

Introduction; Preface: A Treasure House of Information; A Theory Already Collapsed

1 - History of Evolutionary Theory (How modern science got into this problem)

2 - The Big Bang and Stellar Evolution (Why the Big Bang is a fizzle and stars cannot evolve out of gas)

3 - The Origin of the Earth (Why the Earth did not evolve out of a molten state)

4 - The Age of the Earth (Why the Earth is not millions of years old)

5 - The Problem of Time (Why long ages cannot produce evolutionary change)

6 - Inaccurate Dating Methods (Why the non-historical dating techniques are unreliable)

7 - The Primitive Environment (Why raw materials on earth cannot produce life)

8 - DNA and Protein (Why DNA and protein could not be produced by random chance)

9 - Natural Selection (Why natural selection only makes changes within species)

10 - Mutations (Why mutations cannot produce cross-species change)

11 - Animal and Plant Species (Why the species barrier cannot be broken)

12A - Fossils and Strata (Why the fossil/strata theory is a hoax)

12B - Fossils and Strata (Why the fossil/strata theory is a hoax)

13 - Ancient Man (Why there is no evidence humans have evolved from anything)

14 - Effects of the Flood (What actually happened after the Flood)

15 - Similarities and Divergence (Why similar structures are not an evidence of evolution)

16 - Vestiges and Recapitulation (You have no useless or unnecessary structures inherited from earlier life forms)

17 - Evolutionary Showcase (The best examples of evolution have proven worthless)

18 - The Laws of Nature (The laws of nature oppose the evolutionary theory)

19 - Evolution, Morality, and Violence (Evolutionary theory is ruining modern civilization)

20 - Tectonics and Paleomagnetism (The truth about plate tectonics and paleomagnetism)

21 - Archaeological Dating (Correlating Egyptian and other archaeological dates with the Bible)

22 - Evolutionary Science Fiction (Fabulous fairy tales which only tiny children can believe)

23 - Scientists Speak (Evolutionary scientists say the theory is unscientific and worthless)

24 - Utterly Impossible (Things evolution could never invent)

25 - The Latest Evolution Crisis (The most recent news [to 2006] in the Evolution Battle)

26 - The Case for Intelligent Design (The evidence keeps getting stronger)

27 - Summary of the Anthropic Principle (Discovering a flood of coincidences)

28 - Eighteen Factors Disproving Evolution (Evolution flunks the science test)

29 - Say It Simple (What is this all about?)

30 - Problems with Big Bang Creationism (When opposites are combined)

31 - Will You Defend God in this Time of Crisis? (Schools, Employment, and Churches)

Whatever your respective beliefs, this read and research (yes, by REAL scientists and science -- even Christians respect and discover real scientific facts) will cause you to reconsider erasing the blackboard and starting all over again.

Liberator  posted on  2013-03-29   18:21:44 ET  (1 image) Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: Liberator (#55)

http://evolutionfacts.com/Downloads.htm

Low budget comedy, written by someone who has most of the basic facts wrong.

I don't have time to debunk the entire book, but here are a few tidbits that demonstrate how wrong on the basic facts this guy really is.

Chapter 4 - THE AGE OF THE EARTH

There are many star clusters in the universe. Each one is a circular ball composed of billions upon billions of stars.

He apparently doesn't know the term "galaxy". LOL.

Galaxies are not circular balls. Galaxies come in many shapes, but none of them are balls.

some of these clusters—with their stars—are moving so rapidly, together, in a certain direction that it should be impossible for them to remain together if the universe were very old.

Completely untrue. Galaxies are held together by a type of matter (dark matter) that our current technology has not been able to detect yet.

Physics predicted the cosmic background radiation, which was later discovered in the 1960s. Physics predicted the Higgs boson, which was almost certainly detected by the Large Hadron Collider a couple months ago. At some point, we'll have the technology to figure out what dark matter really is.

Some stars are so enormous in diameter that it is thought that they could not have existed for even a few million years, otherwise their initial larger mass would have been impossibly large

A basic misconception in how stars work. Stars do not shrink much as they burn through their hydrogen. The Sun's mass at the end of its lifetime (in another 4 billion years) will be 99.966% of its current mass (simple math, which you know little about). Depending upon the size of the star, when the hydrogen is gone, the star will either puff up into a red giant and then collapse into a white dwarf, or the star will explode into a super nova and collapse into a black hole.

Very large stars burn their fuel in as little as 10 million years. Stars like our sun will burn their fuel in 8 to 10 billion years. Red dwarfs could take up to a trillion years to burn their fuel.

in 1967, that the trillions of particles in the rings circling the planet Saturn are primarily composed of solid ammonia. Since solidified ammonia has a much higher vapor pressure than even ice, reputable scientists recognize that it could not survive long without vaporizing off into space

No. Saturn's Rings are made of water ice with a trace amount of rocky material. The 60s are long gone. It's time to get over it.

Meteoroids bombarding Saturn’s rings would have destroyed them in far less than 20,000 years.

No. Saturn's rings are not solid. Something striking one small area won't disrupt the entire thing. Saturn's gravity will quickly align the small disrupted area back in place.

Io is the innermost of the four original “Galilean moons,” and was found to have over sixty active volcanoes! These volcanoes spew plumes of ejecta from 60 to 160 miles [97 to 257 km] above Io’s surface. This is astounding. Nothing on our planet can match this continuous stream of material being shot out by Io’s volcanoes at a velocity of 2000 miles per hour [3218 km per hour]! The usual evolutionary model portrays all the planets and moons as being molten 5 billion years ago. During the next billion years they are said to have had active volcanoes. Then, 4 billion years ago, the volcanism stopped as they cooled. Io is quite small; yet it has the most active volcanoes we know133 of. Obviously, it is quite young and its internal heat has not had time to cool.

Wrong again. Io's extreme geologic activity is the result of tidal heating from friction generated within Io's interior as it is pulled between Jupiter and the other Galilean satellites—Europa, Ganymede and Callisto. Io's interior will never cool because of the enormous gravitational forces it's subject to.

If all four moons of Jupiter’s “Galilean moons” evolved, they should be essentially alike in physical characteristics.

Just because he said so? LOL...

that earth’s magnetic field is gradually decaying

The earth's magnetic field goes through cycles and occasionally reverses (where magnetic north is at the south pole). We can see the magnetic field drifting today and magnetic north is no longer at the North Pole. Prior to such a magnetic field reversal, the magnetic field tends to get weaker. After the reversal, the field gets stronger. This is well documented in the geological record.

According to one theory of solar energy, hydrogen is constantly being converted into helium as stars shine. But hydrogen cannot be made by converting other elements into it. *Fred Hoyle, a leading astronomer, maintains that, if the universe were as old as Big Bang theorists contend, there should be little hydrogen in it. It would all have been transformed into helium by now. Yet stellar spectra reveal an abundance of hydrogen in the stars; therefore the universe must be youthful.

The answer is too long to post here. Google "star formation", "stellar nurseries", and "supernovas". Perhaps, you'll actually learn something.

Also, Fred Hoyle was a critic of the Big Bang in 1949, BEFORE we had the technology to observe that the universe actually is expanding.

Quoting things from the 1940s and 1960s is not helping your case.

I don't have to time to futz with this anymore. Any objective observer should realize that whomever wrote this book is largely ignorant of basic scientific facts. But of course, you take his uniformed nonsense as gospel, which is a real problem.

jwpegler  posted on  2013-03-29   22:57:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 71.

        There are no replies to Comment # 71.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 71.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com