-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Some Einstein sh..tuff, science discussion
- Thread starter Daniel DeLuca
- Start date
Oh yes, me again with flying rocks.
With so much rocks flying into space and especially small dust, how Earth didn't finish with some extra moons or even small ring?
3% of Earth mass fly into space and exactly 0.00000000% gets lucky to finish in Earth orbit. Everybody falls don't or runs away.
With so much rocks flying into space and especially small dust, how Earth didn't finish with some extra moons or even small ring?
3% of Earth mass fly into space and exactly 0.00000000% gets lucky to finish in Earth orbit. Everybody falls don't or runs away.
I'm searching back through this topic and not seeing any list of questions so why don't you list them here and I will answer them for you.
Kindly format them as a list and I will respond to them in context.
Why does Earth have only one Moon? | Astronomy.com
Why does Earth have only one Moon? And why do some planets have several moons, while others have none? A physicist explains.
www.astronomy.com
It's not that. If Earth is 6000 years old and flood was say, 5000 years ago, there should be at least some dust or small rocks in Earth's orbit. Or astronomers should have noticed it and written about it before.Why does Earth have only one Moon? | Astronomy.com
Why does Earth have only one Moon? And why do some planets have several moons, while others have none? A physicist explains.
Also, if HPT is correct then small rocks in Earth's orbit had 5000 years to fall on Moon or Earth. So where is evidence of falling rocks?
EDIT: Corrected my hideous grammar
Last edited:
That is outdated science they are still clinging to. They have no clue TBH.Why does Earth have only one Moon? | Astronomy.com
Why does Earth have only one Moon? And why do some planets have several moons, while others have none? A physicist explains.
Earth does have more than one moon, but only one moon is large enough to be visible in the night sky. The rocks that have hit the moon and the earth and Mars, are known as meteorites. If you had read the chapters I recommended, you would have known that. Jupiter and Saturn have captured some asteroids. There are also some larger asteroid that have moons, but again, you have to read the material. Seriously man! How hard is it to read the book? It is available for free and I have already posted some links.
Name them. Wikipedia is empty.
This is getting into craziness. Why regular school education doesn't mention these moons? Why would somebody lie about that?
This is starting to looks like flat earth. Experts are flying about everything.
I have already watched 2+ hours of video plus spent more than hour writing big post. Now you want me to spend dozen of hours reading stuff?
This is getting unreasonable.
You best know this theory. You should be able to defend it if it's any good, not saying I need more study time. And why there is no answer to my big post? What is issue, for real? You don't know HPT enough (OK to admit) or I have found holes in HPT and you hope more my studying will patch this up and make me believer?
And meteorites only fall from sky, they don't go first up, them down.
And where are impact crates? You may claim Chicxulub crates is special case with 10km diamater, horewer Earth should have decent amount of 100+ crates. Where are those?
And why Mid -Atlantic ridge doesn't crates? If that ridge could throw out Chicxulub and Ceres, it should also throw up 100+ meter rocks unlucky to reach space and fall near ridge. Or near coast of future continents. Also, if water slowed rock enough, then impact wouldn't annihilate rocks and therefore area around ridge should be full of rocks.
By the way, the more I think about HPT the more questions I have.
I see no reason for more "study time" since every time I find new reasons against HPT. Not a mark of good theory, but mark of broken one.
A moon is an object that orbits around a planet. There are several objects that do this around the earth. One is the moon, obviously. There are others that have very long orbits, are not seen for many years at a time, and do not come as close to the earth like the moon when they do. They are still technically moons. There are also objects that are temporarily earth moons in their current trajectory, but that will become unstable in the future and it will not remain so. There are many things that happen out in space that we just don't notice in our day to day life and with the naked eye.
OK you just want to express ignorance and outrage. You clearly have not done your homework. I have expressed openness to this Wolfram fellow. If you don't know what you are criticizing, you should hold off on that criticism before you make yourself look any more ridiculous than you have already done here. I know HPT! I have studied it for well over a decade. Dr Brown has pointed to the evidence. All you have here is theory. You don't know what you are talking about, but you refuse to admit it. ot having enough time to do the homework, is no exvuse for spouting ignorant opinions!
EDIT: IF ANYTHING is similar to Flat Earth, iti is this hocus Pocus Time Dilation and Curveture of Space-time and String Theory. You have these so-called brilliant theoriticians basically claiming that nothing is real and that we are all in some computer simulation Matrix. You will find out how real everything is the moment you step out in front of an 18 wheeler rolling down the highway at highway speeds!
Last edited:
If you had done your homework, you would have seen this:
Twenty-six additional observations either (1) support the proposed explanation that meteoroids and the material that formed asteroids came from Earth, or (2) are inconsistent with current theories on the origin of asteroids and meteoroids.
15. Earth has one big moon and several tiny moons—up to 650 feet in diameter.
Citation:
86. Tony Phillips, “Corkscrew Asteroid,” http://science.nasa.gov/ headlines/y2006/09jun_moonlets.htm.
It is absurd for you to demand that I name a bunch of tiny moons, but if you had read this, you would have seen that your entire objection is completely baseless!
They are tiny. Consider yourself a bit more educated. You're welcome! You learned something that the Free eduaction system did not care to explain to you. Dr. Brown didn't come up with it either. Go follow his citation to verify this.
Flying? Dr. Brown cited this expert. Seriously! If you think the mainstream science community is friendly towards anything that has to do with the global flood, and that they treat this theory with even a modicum of fairness, and are not completely dismissive of it, solely because it supports this global flood, you are living in a different universe. Admittedly HPT gets thrown into guilt by association, due to the fact that AIG and ICR have notoriously embraced very bad theories (VC and CPT) that require miracles to explain away their major problems, but Dr. Brown was on the forefront warning ICR that VC was not a workable theory either scientificallly or biblically. VC was actually plagerized from an atheist who was trying to explain all the flood legends, and ICR co-opted the theory as their own, and presented it in their book "The Genesis Flood". In doing so, while it gained them popularity, it did a great disservice to the credibility of the entire YEC movement.
It is not unreasonable at all if you wish to try to discredit it. You have to know what you are talking about, and you obviously do not!
Consider this a defense. You are too quick to speak, quick to wrath, and slow to listen. James advises us to be the opposite. I am saying you need to study, rather than rely on others to do the work for you. The only holes you have found, are due to your own ignorance. You cannot say you have found a hole, until you have read the entirety of what Dr. Brown has written! Yes, it is a LOT of work! It is laughable though to claim that you found holes, where none exist. The only holes you have found are in your own imagination!
Seriously! You don't have a clue! They don't go up any more, because the rupture event is OVER! The supercritical water has been released! Good grief!In your two plus hours of study, you did not see this??????
This is pathetic!
Between you and Megan, you would have me copy and paste the entire book here in this forum!
Figure 169: Near and Far Sides of the Moon. Today, as the Moon orbits around Earth, the same side of the Moon always faces Earth. Surprisingly, the near and far sides of the Moon are quite different. Almost all deep moonquakes are on the near side.67 The surface of the far side is rougher, but the near side has most of the Moon’s volcanic features, lava flows, dome complexes, and giant, multiringed basins. also, lava flows (darker regions) have smoothed over many craters on the near side.68
Some have proposed that the Moon’s crust must be thinner on the near side, so lava can squirt out more easily on the near side than the far side. However, measurements of gravity,69 heat flow, and seismic activity destroy that idea. The Moon’s density throughout is almost as uniform as that of a billiard ball.70 Not only did large impacts form the giant basins, but their impact energy melted rock below, generated lava flows, and expanded the Moon! The GRAIL satellites detected the cracks that brought the lava to the surface—apparently rapidly and recently.71 [See “Hot Moon” on page 41.]
Large impacts would also shift rock within the moon and produce deep frictional melting. Magma produced below the Moon’s crossover depth would sink to the Moon’s center and form the Moon’s small liquid core that was discovered in 2011.72 That core has not had time to cool and solidify. [The crossover depth is explained on pages 159–160.]
Contemporaries of Galileo misnamed these dark lava flows “maria” (MAHR-ee-uh), Latin for “seas,” because they filled low-lying regions and looked smooth. These maria give the Moon its “man-in-the-moon” appearance. Of the Moon’s 31 giant basins, only 11 are on the far side.73 (See if you can flip 31 coins and get 11 or fewer tails. Not too likely. It happens only about 7% of the time.) Why should the near side have so many more giant impact features and almost all the maria74 and deep moonquakes? Opposite sides of Mars and Mercury are also different.75
If the impacts that produced these volcanic features came rapidly from a single direction, only one side would be primarily hit. If the impacts occurred rapidly from all directions or slowly—longer that one orbital period (30 days for the Moon)—from a single direction, all sides would be equally hit. Were the large lunar impactors launched rapidly from Earth? Apparently. Similar statements can be made for Mars and Mercury, so this bombardment event affected the solar system.
Large impacts would kick up millions of smaller rocks that would create secondary impacts. Some rocks would escape the Moon and possibly hit Earth. Today, both sides of the Moon are saturated with smaller, secondary craters, so Earth’s flood cataclysm also beat up the Moon.
The ridge did not create the meteorites! I know you struggle with English comprehension, but HPT does not purport such a thing! The ridge marks the spot where the crack formed and widened!!! The rocks were jetted into outer space by the supercritical water! Dr. Brown has made a solid case that the rocks that exist in space came from earth, and were formed in this water, and show all the earmarks of water erosion!
Well get a better understanding of it, and maybe you won't have so many questions!
The issue is with you and your comprehension. The theory does not have any issues whatsoever, at east as far as you have been able to idenitify! The competing theories are the broken ones, but you have not done enough investigation to compare the evidence put forth against HPT or any other theory. You simply continue to accept those theories, because that's what they taught you in grade school up through the University. Go ahead and embrace establishment science as if their claims were factual, but don't pretend you actually know anything here in this forum, because you have just shown how little you really know. One other thing you have demonstrated here, is how willing you are to overlook the gaping holes in the competing theories, while nitpicking what you think are holes, which turn out to be nothing other than your misunderstanding of what HPT actually posits. It seems that anyone who has done the slightest bit of research on the theory would realize that those asteroids, meteorites, comets, and TNOs were jetted up into space by the subteranean water that shot up when the rupture occurred, but for the life of me, I don't know how you missed that part! Perhaps it is because you approached the theory at the outset, with a dismissive mindset.
Last edited:
I did enough homework. I should be able to understand basics which should provide basic answer.
When I say I have more question, this isn't compliment. It's critism. Good theory helps understand world, not to create more confusion.
Matrix could actually be best explanation of world.
When we die, we just exit simulation and enter into real world where we face Lord and his judgement.
You know, if you play Call of Duty and kill some bot, his death is real to him as you getting overrun with truck.
If you in simulation, you can't see outside, so everything that happens in real inside simulation.
Same as dreams. While dreaming, everything is real.
Well, I learned something about small rocks orbiting Earth.
What is VC, CPT, AIG and ICR?
I do support theories going against mainstream. Difference is that "promoters" do better explanation of what is happening than HPT.
I'm not trying to discreding it. I have just found it wanting.
No. I have gone exactly by that, accept possibility of idea being true, do some basic extrapolation and found ???
For example, in video proof of HPT was mentioned geography around Mid-Atlantic rift. First comes plateau, then mountains. Examples: North America, South America and Africa.
Me doing quick check:
North America: big plateau, then Rockies
South America: big plateau, then Andes
Africe: big plateau, mountains in Ethiopia
Checking globus, hey Europe also border Atlantic
Europe: no big plateau, no parallel mountains (except small Urals which never stopped invansion, so they barely count)
So basically, HPT guy told me what is evidence, by using HIS evidence as example and checking all possibilities I have found something wrong (Europe).
This isn't stupidity or ignorance. This is his mistake and proof something is wrong.
Moon is admitelly proof.Seriously! You don't have a clue! They don't go up any more, because the rupture event is OVER! The supercritical water has been released! Good grief!In your two plus hours of study, you did not see this??????
This is pathetic!
Between you and Megan, you would have me copy and paste the entire book here in this forum!
Figure 169: Near and Far Sides of the Moon. Today, as the Moon orbits around Earth, the same side of the Moon always faces Earth. Surprisingly, the near and far sides of the Moon are quite different. Almost all deep moonquakes are on the near side.67 The surface of the far side is rougher, but the near side has most of the Moon’s volcanic features, lava flows, dome complexes, and giant, multiringed basins. also, lava flows (darker regions) have smoothed over many craters on the near side.68
Some have proposed that the Moon’s crust must be thinner on the near side, so lava can squirt out more easily on the near side than the far side. However, measurements of gravity,69 heat flow, and seismic activity destroy that idea. The Moon’s density throughout is almost as uniform as that of a billiard ball.70 Not only did large impacts form the giant basins, but their impact energy melted rock below, generated lava flows, and expanded the Moon! The GRAIL satellites detected the cracks that brought the lava to the surface—apparently rapidly and recently.71 [See “Hot Moon” on page 41.]
Large impacts would also shift rock within the moon and produce deep frictional melting. Magma produced below the Moon’s crossover depth would sink to the Moon’s center and form the Moon’s small liquid core that was discovered in 2011.72 That core has not had time to cool and solidify. [The crossover depth is explained on pages 159–160.]
Contemporaries of Galileo misnamed these dark lava flows “maria” (MAHR-ee-uh), Latin for “seas,” because they filled low-lying regions and looked smooth. These maria give the Moon its “man-in-the-moon” appearance. Of the Moon’s 31 giant basins, only 11 are on the far side.73 (See if you can flip 31 coins and get 11 or fewer tails. Not too likely. It happens only about 7% of the time.) Why should the near side have so many more giant impact features and almost all the maria74 and deep moonquakes? Opposite sides of Mars and Mercury are also different.75
If the impacts that produced these volcanic features came rapidly from a single direction, only one side would be primarily hit. If the impacts occurred rapidly from all directions or slowly—longer that one orbital period (30 days for the Moon)—from a single direction, all sides would be equally hit. Were the large lunar impactors launched rapidly from Earth? Apparently. Similar statements can be made for Mars and Mercury, so this bombardment event affected the solar system.
Large impacts would kick up millions of smaller rocks that would create secondary impacts. Some rocks would escape the Moon and possibly hit Earth. Today, both sides of the Moon are saturated with smaller, secondary craters, so Earth’s flood cataclysm also beat up the Moon.
Horewer, you didn't understand my critism of flying rocks.
HPT says some rocks were launched from todays Mid-Atlantic rift into space. Ok. We now call these rocks asteroids. OK.
Well, some rocks must not achieve escape velocity, many didmn't even escape atmosphere. Well, what would happen with such rocks? They must fall don't. Where? Most likely around today's Mid-Atlantic rift (assuming near vertical launch, I see no reason for 45 degrees of launch). Well, some asteroid are pretty big, dozens of meters easily.
Well, basic physics, biggest rocks will have smallest possibility of escaping Earth's gravity. So area around Mid-Atlantic rift should be have well above average cratered surface than rest of world.
Do I see such evidence? No.
And this isn't only issue I have. They are all listed in big posts and found on basic same principle.
Do basic implications, see no evidence, isn't this wrong?
This is basic problem I see with HPT. People supporting it don't do basic implications of theory and check validity.
I see no reason to trust scientific claims make by people failling to check their work*
*admitelly by video of one guy, rest could be better. Horewer, he provided no evidence for better explanation of "anomalies" which makes me conclude he either doesn't see it, or is wilfull disregard.
I have C1 English from Cambridge. I understand very well.
I will say again. I understand basic physics only. I have about zero competence in evaluating which theory is better and where are they wrong.
I'm able to understand theory and use basic logic to find obvious implications and check does "basic evidence" matches basic implications.
Horewer, I consider basic competence of scientists to check obvious implications of his conclusions. Here they fail.
I'm just waiting on this list of questions you wanted me to answer.
keep working the structure and grammar.
Well you do have a language barrier. You have done enough homework to make a personal assessment. You may prefer what the Plate Tectonic snake oil salesmen are purveying, for example. I know Megan has expressed support for that theory. If you are not familiar with the term snake oil by the way, it means it is a scam. You certainly have not done enough homework though, to make a public assessment that the theory is somehow broken. You have only done a tiny fraction of the research that I and others have done on this theory. Your initial assessment that HPT is not your forte, remains true. What you did though, was commit two Logical Fallacies, namely the Straw Man Fallacy, and the Cum Hoc Fallacy (Comparing HPT to FE).
Questions are good. Dismissal is not.
Well, it is predictable if you go down that path, that you start to embrace this idea that there is no such thing as a real world.
Awesome! Good to see! Keep it up!
VC = Vapor Canopy
CPT = Catastrophic Plate Tectonics
AIG = Answers in Genesis
ICR = Institute for Creation Research
Yes I do throw some of these Young earth groups under the proverbial bus. That is an entirely different rabbit trail that I have recently uncovered. It is sad, because they are the ones most people look to for Biblical answers, but their science is really bad!
They do a better job of promoting, and they also disparage HPT, simply on the basis that it competes with their pet theories. HPT is gaining ground though. HPT does a phenomenol job of explaining, but it will take you more work, since there is a major language barrier for you to overcome.
The Straw Man that you presented, was found wanting. HPT itself is not.
You misunderstood.
We use the word "Continent". "Plateau" means something entirely different. Mountains were formed, during the compression event. It is analogous to what happens during a train wreck.
Continent, yes, and when the leading edge stopped, the rest of the continent, didn't, at least not right away. So the land masses buckled upward as evidenced by the layers of strata.Me doing quick check:
North America: big plateau, then Rockies
South America: big plateau, then Andes
Africe: big plateau, mountains in Ethiopia
Have you ever heard of the Swiss Alps? HPT makes a claim that both the Mediterranean and the Carribean/Gulf of America(tee hee hee) were land masses where the cap was blown off. I can honestly say that leaves me with questions, and more digging to do as far as trying to comprehend what he is referring to, but I have encountered some things in HPT, that I did not at first comprehend in the past, and after further digging, it did make a lot more sense.
Himalayas. Also HPT purports that in some places, the crust buckled downward, forming the trenches. The mass inside the mantle that buckled upward in the Atlantic had to come from somewhere!Europe: no big plateau, no parallel mountains (except small Urals which never stopped invansion, so they barely count)
Europe and Asia are basically one continent, separated by the Bosporus straits and the Urals.
Good! Keep digging.
Those rocks that eventually did not achieve escape velocity could not possibly fall directly into the upward flow. Think of what happens to water coming out of a water fountain. It came down as sediments, as it was a combination of rocks and dirt that was shot up from the rift (not the ridge as the ridge formed later). This is the phase towards the end of the 40 days of Geshem, when the waters prevailed upon the earth, as it says in the Genesis account.
So they would go against the flow of jetting water, eh! Think path of least resistance. The rocks on one side of the fountains of the great deep would travel that direction, while the rocks on the other side, would go the other way. This is the phase of the flood where the Mammoths were buried alive and quick frozen. HPT has an entire chapter, and Nickels also has a video on that.
When you read about the Mammoths, you will see where those sediments and rocks went.
Well, you will have to work through these issues one at a time. This is not going to get resolved overnight.
Work through the tables at the end of each chapter, where he goes through each piece of evidence and compares it to other theories, and describes how HPT answers the puzzle, and how those other theories answer it. Do a side by side, on the theory of your choice to see which theory explains the phenomenon best. Each one of those pieces of evidence, is backed up by citations from other scientists who do not subscribe to HPT, and in most cases, they are perplexed by that evidence, if they are not able to come up with an Ad Hoc solution.
OK, you really do not know what you are talking about. You have barely scratched the surface, and you think you have all the answers. If you really want the truth, do less posting and more researching. That is what I did. I researched opposition to HPT as well, OK! I found the opposition wanting. Look for online debates like the one we are having. But before you can publicly come out and claim that this theory is broken, or has anything in common with Flat Earth (Cum Hoc Fallacy), you had better know what you are talking about, because clearly you do not!
Then you should reject the competing theories.
Well your so-called anomalies have not been thought through very well.
You are conversant, but there are nuances that you seem to have missed.
Dr Walt Brown has a PhD from MIT in Mechanical Engineering. I studied Physics 101 and 102 and got As in the curricular work. Labs were a chore, because I had to work a full time job to put myself through school, so that brought my overall grade down a bit, but I only had so much time to work with. I took Chemistry 101 as well and got an A in it, so I would recommend you delve into that a bit as well. Also some Calculus would do you some good, especially in understanding the physics calculations. I made As in Calc I and III, and a B in Calc II. I also made an A in Diff Equations and in Linear Algebra, which are rather gruelling math related courses. I ruined the curve for my classmates. Not trying to boast, but it does take some comprehension of the physical sciences to grasp HPT.
It does. Trust me! I would know.
Well this is true for a lot of scientists, because they are glued to theories such as Plate Tectonics. They make claims about Sea floor spreading and subduction, but when you look at their evidence, they are going off magnetic anomalies, which they refer to as "reversals", when in fact, they are nothing more than fluctuations. I mean, there really is zero evidence whatsoever for Mantle Convection, but AI has been fed a bunch of garbage. HPT has profound explanative power. I recommend, if you think HPT is flawed, just read his references at the end of each chapter, because that is where he quotes other scientists who do not hold to HPT. Make note of where those other scientists are surprised, perplexed, and bewildered by the evidence that they themselves have uncovered. None of that evidence is really a surprise to those of us who understand HPT. You are making progress. Don't throw in the towel. I predict that this will be the most enlightening experience that you will ever face.
Good science makes predictions. HPT does just that, and you can see for yourself, whether those predictions that have been made in previous revisions, have come true. Good luck!
Last edited:
For person often thinking more in English than Croatian, there are no language barriers. Reading your answer I got feeling like I'm talking to dedicated commie. If I just read little more Karl Marx I would achieve Enlightenment.
Not answered questions are from my perspective problems for theory. Problematic theory without hope of fixing it deserves dismissal.
Thanks.
I should be more specific. By "theories going against mainstream" includes zero geographical theories. More like evolution and economics.
I'm very much certain video used word "Plateau".
He would also have to explain Pyrenees, Balkan Mountains, Carpathians etc.... Europe isn't exactly poor in mountains. And Himalayas aren't parallels with Mid-Atlantic rift. If equator got moved then Andes and Rockies would also have to be angled.
I didn't expect rocks going exactly vertical. Slight difference in angle would mean, for example, rock leaving stream at 50-60 km above ground slight angled which means it will go down and fall mean rift.
Won't be done. Not worth effort.
Tables done by creator of one of competing theories. I wouldn't call that objective.
I never said competing theories are good, only HPT isn't. Also I don't claim I have all answers.
I'm smart and have some wisdom (objective facts), however, I don't have all answers. Knowing lot and some confidence could create that illusion.
They are same question I would asked if it was public presentation. Not exactly certain presenter would have good answers.
Exact mechanism and and all details. Not the basics. We are still at level of basic physics.
Rock goes up, loses speed going up and it must fall down is intuitive physics understanding.
Let me see. Will better understanding of Earth tectonics and creation of solar system have transformative power in my life? Well, it will have about zero chance simply because it can't unveil nothing hidden to me and important. Material science beats this more than 1 000 000X.
Expect I did that. From where do you think my "anomalies" come?
OK That is a Cum Hoc Fallacy again! What is it with you employing Logical Fallacies? You ought to know better!
I answered them. If you had not thrown in the towel, you would have received your answer. You thought that the theory purports that the rocks came from the ridge, when they came from the crust. I'm not sure how you got so confused, but again, that language barrier could be the culprit.
I am not sure what you mean.
That word was used when speaking about the Colorado plateau, in the chapter on the Grand Canyon. The word you may be thinking of, is "Plate", as in Hydro plate. The continental plate is not a plateau. Big Huge difference. See you are going to have to be a bit more patient and less dismissive in your studies, if you are ever going to come to the truth.
You are more Euro centered. He covers it more from an American perspective. That is why he discusses the Appalachians and the Ozarks. Yes they all formed during the compression event. Look more closely at where the ridge comes to a stop, to the West of India. That is what formed the Himylayas. The equator has nothing to do with the angle of the mountians. They were formed by compression. Obviously the American plate moved further and faster than the Eurasian and African plates.
Again, you misunderstand where the rocks came from to begin with. They did not come from the ridge. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. They came from the eroding crust! HPT purports that the cliff was 60 miles high, and that 5 miles is the most that can be sustained before collapse. The fastest flowing water came at the outset of the bursting forth, when the erosion began. Recall the gun that Germany used to fire shells at Paris, which was not even one mile in length.
That is on you then.
Assign your own grades. Dr. Brown readily admits that his grades are subjective. Compare the theories and decide for yourself which grade is more fitting. Or do you expect the authors of these other theories to come right out and admit that their theories have major problems. Oh wait! They actually do! They just don't make tables to compare their theories against potentially better theories. Now why do you suppose that is? There is nothing stopping them from doing so!
I am saying that HPT is better than those competing theories. HAve you got one that is better than HPT. You can criticise it all you want, but it explains far better than anything you have proposed.
Since you don't really want to do the reseasrch, just go ahead and reject the competing theories, read your Bible, and accept what IT says! Don't worry about the science, since it appears to be over your head. When you come across an atheist or agnostic who believes all that nonsense, refer them to me, and let me work with them.
Go ahead! They have conferences. Tune in to Real Science Radio. Ask your questions there!
Into the flow of water jetting up? You are still not getting it. Observe a water fountain. Where does the water go? Does it go straight up and then back down, or does it spray in 360 different directions?
I am not sure what you mean by "Material science". I get it. Some of this stuff seems to be a bit out of your league. Hold your criticism of it though, since you seem to not be able to grasp it.
I was refering to a number of predicitons found throughout ITB. You are not making predictions. You are only expressing your lack of understanding. One prediction made in ITB (In The Beginning), is that asteroids would be discovered that they are merely flying piles of rock. Well guess what! They are, much to the surprise of NASA! Here is another one: Planet X will not be found by 2021 because it does not exist. The context is that NASA had anounced that they anticipated they would find such a planet by 2021. Dr. Brown 2, NASA 0.
Last edited: