Pluto Overshadows Iran and even the Abortion Cover-Up
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
6days
New member
I showed Bob was correct since secular astronomers admit surprise and amazement ...since it does not fit their expectations
gcthomas
New member
This ^^ again.
Bob was wrong, demonstrably wrong. Evidence presented.
Are you going to ignore that again?
6days
New member
gcthomas said:
I suspect Bob said that evolutionary predictions were that the distant universe would be all "young" galaxies? If so... he is correct. As you say, the galaxies are systematically different... To this day astronomers are "surprised" and "amazed" finding things in the universe which contradict their billions of years belief system.*
6days
New member
The frozen lake of carbon monoxide on Pluto seems to be further confirmation of Walt Browns Hydroplate theory. The heat caused by the accretion of matter from earth (flood model) is responsible for causing the geysers on Pluto, which formed the mountains.*The heat would have caused the burning of vegetation that originated on earth. Burning in a low oxygen atmosphere / confined space, produces carbon monoxide. As the gas hit the surface of Pluto, it would have condensed then fell like rain running into the low area on Pluto forming the Carbon Monoxide lake.
Last edited:
gcthomas
New member
The OP quote from the show is "We, as young-earth Biblical creationists predicted those galaxies were going to look just like all the other galaxies. And who was right? I mean, how could all of NASA be wrong? And how could 1 Bible talk-show be right?"
"look just like" was the prediction. You shouldn't try to rewrite the question to fit the answer as it looks thoroughly dishonest.
The fact is, the prediction has been proved wrong, as you have seen. Not that you or Bob will ever admit such a thing.
Daniel1611
New member
NASA released a new picture of earth today on their Facebook page. A composite, by their own admission. Why not just take a photograph?
gcthomas
New member
A composite of PHOTOGRAPHS, dummy. And it is a composite because most cameras have a narrow field of view to give them scientifically useful resolutions.
Here is a Meteosat full globe image, not a composite, taken 80 minutes ago:
The Berean
Well-known member
6days
New member
He did not say they will all look alike. He said they will look just like all the other galaxies....IE. That the galaxies would not be "all infant galaxies" That prediction is correct. And that is why secular astronomers express surprise and amazement.gcthomas said:
Here is the full OP
When NASA said that their Hubble deep-field image would look at the farthest galaxies that have ever been photographed, they predicted we were going to see all infant galaxies because the light left those galaxies back when the universe was young but now it’s 14 billion years old. We, as young-earth Biblical creationists predicted those galaxies were going to look just like all the other galaxies. And who was right? I mean, how could all of NASA be wrong? And how could 1 Bible talk-show be right?
Daniel1611
New member
A composite of PHOTOGRAPHS, dummy. And it is a composite because most cameras have a narrow field of view to give them scientifically useful resolutions.
Here is a Meteosat full globe image, not a composite, taken 80 minutes ago:
Its still not a photo. If I remember correctly, the Apollo 11 images are just snapshots from a camera. Why not just do that? Why use Photoshop?
gcthomas
New member
It is a photo. With an overlay automatically added. No photoshop. No human involvement, just automatic systems posting the images online every 30 minutes.
Daniel1611
New member
Uhh huh.
gcthomas
New member
No, it's not. The galaxies are systematically different from near ones. That is, they have found out what 'infant galaxies' look like. And they look different. Not alike as the prediction had it. They look like the young galaxies they are, not like the old ones nearby.
Stop wriggling. What is the point of firm predictions that you are not allowed to falsify with facts? Get real. Reality is good - you'd like it.
Daniel1611
New member
They're just getting these alleged HD photos of pluto and saying there may be dwarf planets in our solar system past pluto. But they already know so much about these alleged galaxies Sextillions of miles away. It's absurd. I wonder if they don't just say this stuff to see how much we will believe. And apparently we will believe anything.
gcthomas
New member
Galaxies are a lot bigger than a dwarf like Pluto, that is much smaller than it moon, and they glow with the light of half a trillion suns.
You can see a galaxy naked eye, and many more with binoculars. Pluto needs a decent sized telescope.
Daniel1611
New member
If the Hubble can see 240 Sextillion miles, it should be able to see past pluto. But it doesn't because it isn't real.
gcthomas
New member
If you can see as far as the sun, how come you can't see a mosquito 20 miles away? I don't think distant mosquitos are real of you can't see them so much closer than the sun, that you can see.
Daniel1611
New member
If my vision extended for 240 Sextillion miles in high resolution and I focused in on the mosquito, I could probably see it. Kind of like you could walk in the opposite direction from me untill I couldn't see you anymore, but if I had binoculars I could