• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Is there any obvious evidence today for the biblical global Flood?

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Escape velocity, I have no problem with. It's the idea that these very large amounts of material were flung, not just into orbit around the Earth and not just around the Sun in extremely eccentric orbits but that way more material than that was flung clear past Mars and even out past Neptune!

Just stating it is nearly enough to prove it wrong. To claim that sufficient velocity could be imparted to that amount of material (or any amount of rocky material for that matter) in only seconds and have the material still exist as rock, strains credulity in the extreme. The stuff would disintegrate into powder, if it could happen at all.
I don't think you realize how big the earth is and how hard rock is. State sized chucks would have been ripped out of the crack, and they ended up a tiny fraction of the size because of the forces you are correctly saying they would be subject to. In a way, yes, they were turned into powder, but a human's size of power can get rather large when we are talking about earth's view of powder.

Also, you seem to still be claiming that asteroids and comets are (or, more frequently are) solid pieces? I'm pretty sure everything we've found so far is made up of smaller parts even if some are pretty big relative to others.

As far as small rocks bunching up together as they fly through space, I'm also pretty sure that's a feature of Dr. Brown's theory that in the absence of other gravity wells, close objects will bunch together just from the inverse square law which is why there are so many 'peanut' asteroids when they should have balled up if they are more than a few thousand years old. I remember a professor in college showing us the math on that disproved it was gravity of planets that was the mechanism by which astrology worked. Using the inverse square law he showed us the magnitudes greater gravity well affecting a child at birth from the ball of the ballpoint pen in the doctor's pocket than any planet or star, perhaps even including the sun although I don't remember that specifically. In other words, once all the powder pieces got far enough away from the earth, each other's gravity would seem, to them, relatively the only gravity wells affecting them in the whole universe.

And one more thing, once something gets ejected from earth, it's not only the amount of power it left with, but its trajectory that determines were it settles. I'm not an orbital scientist, but I'm sure they can do the math on what power and trajectory would be needed to get the asteroid belt and TNO's into the orbits they have today if they came from earth. If there is an orbital scientist that is available, I'd like to see what they say about the math. I think that would settle the question, and I'm certainly ready to agree with you if those calculations showed dubious numbers required to make it work.

I completely disagree. It is literally based on speculation. I would agree that the Earth originally having a 360 day year would be one way to explain why ancient societies liked to use 360 day calendars but that isn't evidence, that's a hypothesis.


It doesn't reveal that. That's just speculation.

Look, I'm not saying its stupidity. I'm just saying that its speculation.

The hard fact is that every one of these ancient civilizations that used 360 day calendars knew that the year was longer than that and they used various ways to deal with it. Everyone seems to just ignore that point. They clearly liked using 360 days, but to take that, by itself, and leap to the conclusion that these 360 day calendars are vestiges of an actual 360 day long antediluvian year is simply speculation. Speculation that ignores all of the other possible explanations, not the least of which is the fact that 360 is a very much easier number to deal with when dividing something up and there is at least as much evidence that this is the reason for using a 360 day calendar than believing that there used to be a 360 day year.

And so, I say it again...

There is no scientific or historical evidence that the Earth ever had a actual 360 day year.
Sure, it's not much, but the evidence available to claim a 360 day year before the flood is not pure speculation. Pure speculation would be saying the year was 10 days long before the flood.

Like I mentioned in a previous thread, an example of little evidence is not pure speculation: There was a show called Forensic Files where they go over cases where forensics made a difference in the case. In this show, there was a body recovered from the water when a boat that went through a storm needed rescuing. A survivor was also rescued who was the only other person on the boat when it left the dock. The dead body presented with a deep laceration in the skull. The survivor was accused of murder by the investigator. He claimed the injury was consistent with a large cutting tool found on fishing boats like this one and the man had confessed. The DA did not bring charges because he said the injury was also consistent with being hit by the prop and the confession was not admissible since it was obvious torture. Years later, with the advancement of forensic science, the truth was found out about which man was correct.

In both cases, both men had the same scant evidence. But neither was going off NO evidence. Let's say, for example, another investigator claimed they needed to find the closest beekeeper because he thinks the body died by massive bee-attack. Now that would be pure speculation with no evidence.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I don't think you realize how big the earth is and how hard rock is. State sized chucks would have been ripped out of the crack, and they ended up a tiny fraction of the size because of the forces you are correctly saying they would be subject to. In a way, yes, they were turned into powder, but a human's size of power can get rather large when we are talking about earth's view of powder.

Also, you seem to still be claiming that asteroids and comets are (or, more frequently are) solid pieces? I'm pretty sure everything we've found so far is made up of smaller parts even if some are pretty big relative to others.

As far as small rocks bunching up together as they fly through space, I'm also pretty sure that's a feature of Dr. Brown's theory that in the absence of other gravity wells, close objects will bunch together just from the inverse square law which is why there are so many 'peanut' asteroids when they should have balled up if they are more than a few thousand years old. I remember a professor in college showing us the math on that disproved it was gravity of planets that was the mechanism by which astrology worked. Using the inverse square law he showed us the magnitudes greater gravity well affecting a child at birth from the ball of the ballpoint pen in the doctor's pocket than any planet or star, perhaps even including the sun although I don't remember that specifically. In other words, once all the powder pieces got far enough away from the earth, each other's gravity would seem, to them, relatively the only gravity wells affecting them in the whole universe.

And one more thing, once something gets ejected from earth, it's not only the amount of power it left with, but its trajectory that determines were it settles. I'm not an orbital scientist, but I'm sure they can do the math on what power and trajectory would be needed to get the asteroid belt and TNO's into the orbits they have today if they came from earth. If there is an orbital scientist that is available, I'd like to see what they say about the math. I think that would settle the question, and I'm certainly ready to agree with you if those calculations showed dubious numbers required to make it work.
Excellent argument.

There are online resources that can give you the numbers, not the least of which is ChatGPT, which is easily the most readily accessible. When I asked GPT the question, it seemed, without being baited into doing so, to verify that there is no material that could survive such forces. It went so far as to suggest that the material would not merely be vaporized but ionized.

I understand that ChatGPT isn't exactly a definitive source but it went so far as to actually show its mathematical progression toward giving the numbers it gave and I don't have access to any rocket scientists and even if I did, I doubt that I could get them to give this concept the time it would take to do the analysis and so it is what it is.

As for state sized objects being crushed into the relative dust like size of a comet, I appreciate the honest attempt to address the issue but it seems to me that you've only made the problem worse. The problem has always been about the forces needed to move comet sized junks of material up to orbital velocities within a few seconds time. Now you're talking about doing the same with the state of Oklahoma. WOW!

I don't think it would actually matter. The issue has to do with the acceleration of the material, not the mass of the material. The amount of mass would be relevant in regards to the total energy needed but you couldn't accelerate a dime to 18 miles per second within a few seconds time and still have a dime when you finished. You'd have a gaseous cloud of copper and nickel, if you even had that. It's very possible that the stresses involved could overcome the static electric force holding the electrons to the nuclide of the atoms and you'd end up with a ball of plasma.

Sure, it's not much, but the evidence available to claim a 360 day year before the flood is not pure speculation. Pure speculation would be saying the year was 10 days long before the flood.

Like I mentioned in a previous thread, an example of little evidence is not pure speculation: There was a show called Forensic Files where they go over cases where forensics made a difference in the case. In this show, there was a body recovered from the water when a boat that went through a storm needed rescuing. A survivor was also rescued who was the only other person on the boat when it left the dock. The dead body presented with a deep laceration in the skull. The survivor was accused of murder by the investigator. He claimed the injury was consistent with a large cutting tool found on fishing boats like this one and the man had confessed. The DA did not bring charges because he said the injury was also consistent with being hit by the prop and the confession was not admissible since it was obvious torture. Years later, with the advancement of forensic science, the truth was found out about which man was correct.

In both cases, both men had the same scant evidence. But neither was going off NO evidence. Let's say, for example, another investigator claimed they needed to find the closest beekeeper because he thinks the body died by massive bee-attack. Now that would be pure speculation with no evidence.
I agree with all of this. I am not saying that it couldn't be that the Earth used to have a 360 day year. I sort of like the idea of it, actually, and for all the reasons people have already given here on this thread. All I'm saying is the arguments made for it falls far short of proof to the point that I'm not convinced that it is actually true. Maybe it is, but I just think that if it were so, there'd be more evidence for it both biblical and archeological.

Bob Enyart used to make what I think is an excellent argument to support the belief that Adam and Eve fell on the second Friday after creation, the 13th day Anno Mundi, if you will - very first Friday the 13th. I think that the argument he made for that belief is more compelling than the argument made for a 360 day year and yet Bob would always point out that we cannot be dogmatic about that timing of Adam's fall. All I'm saying is that there isn't nearly enough evidence to support the 360 day year hypothesis for anyone to be dogmatic about it and that there's plenty of room for skepticism.
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
The amount of mass would be relevant in regards to the total energy needed but you couldn't accelerate a dime to 18 miles per second within a few seconds time and still have a dime when you finished. You'd have a gaseous cloud of copper and nickel, if you even had that.

According to ChatGPT, not necessarily.

 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
According to ChatGPT, not necessarily.

Asking GPT about accelerating the dime within super-critical water was smart. I hadn't thought to do that.

However, I read nothing there that's inconsistent with what I'm saying. The mechanical stresses alone....

"it could heat up enough to start melting or even vaporizing, depending on the temperature of the supercritical water. However, in a short time frame (like 6 seconds), it might survive the heat but suffer damage from the mechanical forces involved."
"Potentially result in the dime being heated and stressed, with a high likelihood of disintegration or significant damage."​
That said, I do concede that my concerns are not "necessary". I absolutely could be totally wrong. I doubt that I am, but only for the reasons that I've articulated on this thread and I certainly do not claim to be an expert in any of the disciplines that bear on this topic (unlike Dr Brown).
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Asking GPT about accelerating the dime within supercritical water was smart. I hadn't thought to do that.

However, I read nothing there that's inconsistent with what I'm saying. The mechanical stresses alone....

"it could heat up enough to start melting or even vaporizing, depending on the temperature of the supercritical water. However, in a short time frame (like 6 seconds), it might survive the heat but suffer damage from the mechanical forces involved."
"Potentially result in the dime being heated and stressed, with a high likelihood of disintegration or significant damage."​
That said, I do concede that my concerns are not "necessary". I absolutely could be totally wrong. I doubt that I am, but only for the reasons that I've articulated on this thread and I certainly do not claim to be an expert in any of the disciplines that bear on this topic (unlike Dr Brown).

One of the problems with GPT is that unless you tell it specifics, it will assume things that might not be part of the theory.

In this case, the fountains of the great deep were not hot. In fact, the fountains were sub-zero. Closer to absolute zero, even. The only reason they didn't freeze solid was due to the high mineral content in the water, which lowered the freezing point.

In other words, there was very little heat in the fountains, even with the high amount of energy in them.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
One of the problems with GPT is that unless you tell it specifics, it will assume things that might not be part of the theory.

In this case, the fountains of the great deep were not hot. In fact, the fountains were sub-zero. Closer to absolute zero, even. The only reason they didn't freeze solid was due to the high mineral content in the water, which lowered the freezing point.
Not to "near absolute zero", though, right?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I'm not sure. Possibly.
The point I was making is that the mineral content is irrelevant. If you get water, no mater how impure, anywhere near absolute zero, it's going to freeze to the point that it's harder than granite.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Agreed, but I don't think that the fountains of the great deep got that close to absolute zero.
Not at least until they were very far from earth.
Seems like I remember Dr. Brown saying that they did but I can't find it on the online book and so maybe I'm remembering that wrong.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Yes, Dr. Brown does say that.
Have you found another glaring error in his theory?
So, "glaring error" is your terminology not mine, but no, the vast majority of his theory seems very plausible and does an excellent job of explaining a lot of things that main stream geology can't begin to explain and, as best as I can determine, the rest of the theory does not need this portion that is intended to explain the origin of comets, asteroids, Pluto, et al.

Also, although I've argued passionately here on this thread, that passion has more to do with motivating a good debate than it is a commentary on how confident I am that I've found an actual error. What I'd actually like to believe is that Dr Brown is more right than wrong on this particular point, but that, if so, then there is some other additional process involved that makes it possible for the materials to be so dramatically accelerated and, instead of being obliterated by the mechanical forces involved, be delivered intact into solar orbit. However, I keep going, in my mind to the point about this portion of the theory is a solution in search of a problem.

I wonder how much of this particular aspect of Dr. Brown's theory is predicated on the idea the comets are loosely gathers piles of ice and dust, the so called "dirty snow ball" theory of comet composition? I ask that because we have proof now that this is not what comets are. The Rosetta mission revealed that comet 67P has no ice at all on it's surface and that it's corona (it's atmosphere) is hydrogen and oxygen and it's albedo is as dark as asphalt and the water they did find there has a molecular make up very different than Earth's oceans, including about three times the amount of deuterium as water found here on Earth. Not only are comets not dirty snowballs, they aren't even snowy dirt balls. They're heavily cratered bodies with mountains of rock, not ice, and they even observed dunes of comet dust and sand on the surface of Comet 67P. What effect do these discoveries about the composition of comets have on Dr. Brown's theory?

In short, the point I'm making there is that, in addition to the problem of the materials surviving the mechanical forces involved in getting them off the Earth and into solar orbits, comets don't seem to fit the mold for what you'd expect them to be made of if they're just pieces of Earth's crust shot out of the equivalent of a planetary scale super-soaker water cannon. So far as I am aware, Dr. Brown's theory predicted none of these things, nor am I aware of him having published anything in response to these discoveries. If he has done so, I'd be very interested to read it. Indeed, the only theory out there that got within a mile of predicting any of this stuff were the folks involved with the Electric Comet theory (part of the Electric Universe Theory).
 

Right Divider

Body part
So, "glaring error" is your terminology not mine, but no, the vast majority of his theory seems very plausible and does an excellent job of explaining a lot of things that main stream geology can't begin to explain and, as best as I can determine, the rest of the theory does not need this portion that is intended to explain the origin of comets, asteroids, Pluto, et al.
For a theory that does not need this portion, he sure spends a LOT of pages describing it in great detail. That would be pretty silly if it never happened at all.
Also, although I've argued passionately here on this thread, that passion has more to do with motivating a good debate than it is a commentary on how confident I am that I've found an actual error. What I'd actually like to believe is that Dr Brown is more right than wrong on this particular point, but that, if so, then there is some other additional process involved that makes it possible for the materials to be so dramatically accelerated and, instead of being obliterated by the mechanical forces involved, be delivered intact into solar orbit. However, I keep going, in my mind to the point about this portion of the theory is a solution in search of a problem.
Again, Dr. Brown explains this in great details throughout the book. It seem to me that the one factor that you are underestimating is the expansion of super-critical water. It does not just explode in an instant. It expands as it cools.
I wonder how much of this particular aspect of Dr. Brown's theory is predicated on the idea the comets are loosely gathers piles of ice and dust, the so called "dirty snow ball" theory of comet composition? I ask that because we have proof now that this is not what comets are. The Rosetta mission revealed that comet 67P has no ice at all on it's surface and that it's corona (it's atmosphere) is hydrogen and oxygen and it's albedo is as dark as asphalt and the water they did find there has a molecular make up very different than Earth's oceans, including about three times the amount of deuterium as water found here on Earth. Not only are comets not dirty snowballs, they aren't even snowy dirt balls. They're heavily cratered bodies with mountains of rock, not ice, and they even observed dunes of comet dust and sand on the surface of Comet 67P. What effect do these discoveries about the composition of comets have on Dr. Brown's theory?
I'm not sure where you are getting your information about 67P, but there is tons of information about it in In the Beginning. It is mentioned 47 times in the 9th edition.

One note about the deuterium content of comets compared to earth's oceans. It is in the subterranean water that deuterium is most highly concentrated. That water mixed with the original surface water to get today's current concentrations. Since much of the water in comets comes from this subterranean water, it makes sense that it would have a higher concentration than our oceans.

PREDICTION 24: Water-ice on asteroids will be rich in deuterium.
In short, the point I'm making there is that, in addition to the problem of the materials surviving the mechanical forces involved in getting them off the Earth and into solar orbits, comets don't seem to fit the mold for what you'd expect them to be made of if they're just pieces of Earth's crust shot out of the equivalent of a planetary scale super-soaker water cannon.
I will continue to disagree with your assessment and agree with Dr. Brown.
So far as I am aware, Dr. Brown's theory predicted none of these things, nor am I aware of him having published anything in response to these discoveries. If he has done so, I'd be very interested to read it. Indeed, the only theory out there that got within a mile of predicting any of this stuff were the folks involved with the Electric Comet theory (part of the Electric Universe Theory).
Some notes from page 327 of In the Beginning, 9th edition:

“Other clues about [comet 67P’s] origins came from the spacecraft’s chemical sensors. Scanning the surface, for instance, a spectrometer detected an absorption feature associated with complex organic molecules that could include carboxylic acids—precursors to amino acids. … NASA’s Stardust mission found actual amino acids in comet dust it sampled in 2004—but the molecules Rosetta has detected are more complex than those seen on other comets.” [A final list of these complex molecules is in Table 9 on page 311.] Eric Hand, “Comet Close-up Reveals a World of Surprises,” Science, Vol. 347, 23 January 2015, pp. 358–359.

The comet’s atmosphere contained methane, the simplest organic molecule. Methane almost always comes from life, which means that life (such as bacteria) once was, or is, probably on Comet 67P. In rare cases, methane can be produced in other ways, such as when liquid water interacts with certain rocks. However, comets are too cold to have liquid water. Even if comets heated up by traveling close to the Sun or by an impact, the comet’s ice would immediately become a gas (steam), never liquid water. Therefore, bacteria probably were or are on Comet 67P—bacteria launched from Earth. Don’t be fooled by claims that life on Earth came from comets or extraterrestrial bodies. Those ideas, called panspermia, beg the question of how life began, ignore all the deadly radiation in space, and don’t tell us what the critters ate. As shown in Table 9 on page 311, in 2009 scientists discovered many highly complex organic molecules such as glycine, on a comet. Glycine definitely came from life.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
For a theory that does not need this portion, he sure spends a LOT of pages describing it in great detail. That would be pretty silly if it never happened at all.
Perhaps.

Again, Dr. Brown explains this in great details throughout the book. It seem to me that the one factor that you are underestimating is the expansion of super-critical water. It does not just explode in an instant. It expands as it cools.
It expands as fast the the pressure differential permits. As soon as the pressure is released, the expansion would proceed at many times the speed of sound or else there would not have been anywhere near sufficient energy to get the material off the ground at all, much less into solar orbit. Indeed, in such a scenario, the material cannot even get all the way to the full speed of whatever it is that it propelling it and so we are talking about at least dozens of miles per second if not more. That sounds like an explosion to me.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information about 67P, but there is tons of information about it in In the Beginning. It is mentioned 47 times in the 9th edition.
I've not read through, except sparingly, the online version(s). I have two copies of the hard cover from decades ago. I'll look up the 67P stuff and read it.

One note about the deuterium content of comets compared to earth's oceans. It is in the subterranean water that deuterium is most highly concentrated. That water mixed with the original surface water to get today's current concentrations. Since much of the water in comets comes from this subterranean water, it makes sense that it would have a higher concentration than our oceans.

PREDICTION 24: Water-ice on asteroids will be rich in deuterium.
Okay. Cool.

I will continue to disagree with your assessment and agree with Dr. Brown.
That is, of course, your prerogative. Just do so knowing that the issue of how you almost instantly accelerate enormous quantities of rock into Pluto's orbit and beyond without it disintegrating into sub-atomic particles is a question that the theory fails to address.

Some notes from page 327 of In the Beginning, 9th edition:

“Other clues about [comet 67P’s] origins came from the spacecraft’s chemical sensors. Scanning the surface, for instance, a spectrometer detected an absorption feature associated with complex organic molecules that could include carboxylic acids—precursors to amino acids. … NASA’s Stardust mission found actual amino acids in comet dust it sampled in 2004—but the molecules Rosetta has detected are more complex than those seen on other comets.” [A final list of these complex molecules is in Table 9 on page 311.] Eric Hand, “Comet Close-up Reveals a World of Surprises,” Science, Vol. 347, 23 January 2015, pp. 358–359.

The comet’s atmosphere contained methane, the simplest organic molecule. Methane almost always comes from life, which means that life (such as bacteria) once was, or is, probably on Comet 67P. In rare cases, methane can be produced in other ways, such as when liquid water interacts with certain rocks. However, comets are too cold to have liquid water. Even if comets heated up by traveling close to the Sun or by an impact, the comet’s ice would immediately become a gas (steam), never liquid water. Therefore, bacteria probably were or are on Comet 67P—bacteria launched from Earth. Don’t be fooled by claims that life on Earth came from comets or extraterrestrial bodies. Those ideas, called panspermia, beg the question of how life began, ignore all the deadly radiation in space, and don’t tell us what the critters ate. As shown in Table 9 on page 311, in 2009 scientists discovered many highly complex organic molecules such as glycine, on a comet. Glycine definitely came from life.
Is that last paragraph a quote from the book or is that something you're saying? (It seems like the later.)

Methane, in terms of a percentage of its total extant mass, almost never comes from life. In fact, the only life that produces methane is here on Earth. The atmosphere of Jupiter alone has 100,000+ times as much methane as ALL of the methane in Earth's atmosphere (based on methane being approximately .3% of Jupiter's atmosphere). Then there's Saturn's atmosphere which has gobs of methane and Uranus' atmosphere has so much methane that it's turned the whole planet blue (approximately 2.3% of it's atmosphere or another 28,000+ times as much as ALL of Earth's atmospheric methane) and Titan (one of Saturn's moons) which has methane rain and whole river systems and lakes full of methane. Accounting for all the methane on Earth (i.e. not just atmospheric methane but hydrates and everything else) doesn't help those numbers much. Just those four bodies alone, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Titan, have something on the order of 160,000 times as much methane as exists on Earth. It's just a seemingly endless amount of methane almost everywhere you look throughout the outer solar system. Far more than could possibly be accounted for by some relatively small percentage of the Earth getting shot off into space.
 

Right Divider

Body part
It expands as fast the the pressure differential permits. As soon as the pressure is released, the expansion would proceed at many times the speed of sound or else there would not have been anywhere near sufficient energy to get the material off the ground at all, much less into solar orbit. Indeed, in such a scenario, the material cannot even get all the way to the full speed of whatever it is that it propelling it and so we are talking about at least dozens of miles per second if not more. That sounds like an explosion to me.
My point is that this is just the right type of explosion that would launch material into space and not vaporize it.
That is, of course, your prerogative. Just do so knowing that the issue of how you almost instantly accelerate enormous quantities of rock into Pluto's orbit and beyond without it disintegrating into sub-atomic particles is a question that the theory fails to address.
I disagree. I think that it addresses it just fine.
Is that last paragraph a quote from the book or is that something you're saying? (It seems like the later.)
Both of the last paragraphs are from the same page of the 9th edition.
Methane, in terms of a percentage of its total extant mass, almost never comes from life. In fact, the only life that produces methane is here on Earth.
That's exactly one of Dr. Brown's main points about what we find regarding the composition of comets, asteroids, TNO's, etc. They all contain many things only found on earth.
The atmosphere of Jupiter alone has 100,000+ times as much methane as ALL of the methane in Earth's atmosphere (based on methane being approximately .3% of Jupiter's atmosphere). Then there's Saturn's atmosphere which has gobs of methane and Uranus' atmosphere has so much methane that it's turned the whole planet blue (approximately 2.3% of it's atmosphere or another 28,000+ times as much as ALL of Earth's atmospheric methane) and Titan (one of Saturn's moons) which has methane rain and whole river systems and lakes full of methane. Accounting for all the methane on Earth (i.e. not just atmospheric methane but hydrates and everything else) doesn't help those numbers much. Just those four bodies alone, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Titan, have something on the order of 160,000 times as much methane as exists on Earth. It's just a seemingly endless amount of methane almost everywhere you look throughout the outer solar system. Far more than could possibly be accounted for by some relatively small percentage of the Earth getting shot off into space.
Yes, the planets are a different story. I think that your focus on methane misses all of the multitude of other compounds, etc. that are only found on earth and in these other objects (apart from planets).

There is so much "life" on these travelers in our solar system that secular (and atheist) scientists try to make them the source for how life began on earth... instead of the other way around.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
My point is that this is just the right type of explosion that would launch material into space and not vaporize it.
Well, saying it doesn't make it so, RD.

The fact is that it does not matter what sort of explosion it was. It isn't the explosion itself that's the problem, its the mechanical stresses that the acceleration would place on the expelled materials that's the problem. If you have hundreds or thousands of miles to stretch out the acceleration curve then there'd be no problem but you don't. You've got to accelerate that stuff to orbital velocities in less than a few dozens of miles at most and the inertial forces alone would pulverize any rock, no matter how hard, into powder if not literally rip its electrons off and turn it all into a big cloud of plasma.

To date, I've seen nothing to refute this point. Molecules and even atoms are not indestructible. The forces that hold stuff together can be overcome and so you can't just say that this is what happened without accounting for the mind bending forces that would be acting on this material.

I disagree. I think that it addresses it just fine.
How so?

Both of the last paragraphs are from the same page of the 9th edition.
That's a problem.

That's exactly one of Dr. Brown's main points about what we find regarding the composition of comets, asteroids, TNO's, etc. They all contain many things only found on earth.
That the problem!

Yes, the planets are a different story. I think that your focus on methane misses all of the multitude of other compounds, etc. that are only found on earth and in these other objects (apart from planets).

There is so much "life" on these travelers in our solar system that secular (and atheist) scientists try to make them the source for how life began on earth... instead of the other way around.
There is no life on any of these other bodies. Life is one possible source of several compounds but that does not mean that it is the only source, which is proven by the fact that the whole outer solar system is swimming in methane, not to mention other more complex hydrocarbons found on Titan including ethane, propane, butane and acetylene, all of which are produced primarily by photochemical processes, not life.
 
Top