RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (341) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: UnReasonable Kansans thread, AKA "For the kids"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,15:21   

Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,15:31)

Hey, guys.  Here's the deal...once again:

I am more than willing to set up and participate in the phone debate that Brown has offered in his book.  That way, we would all have an opportunity at being "open minded".  The complete exchange could be recorded, transcribed, and available to all who are interested.  I listen to you folks all the time, and I agree you make good points about the age of the earth at times, and at others times I think you're off base.  But, you won't even agree to pick up the phone and engage in a conversation with the man you take issue with.  That makes it difficult to form solid opinions on the matter.  

Now, Nerull has this handy dandy little program he's all excited about so perhaps he or Dave (since he seems to be certain that his side is the final and only authority on the issue) might be willing to participate in the call.  

Nerull, have you read ever single bit of Walt's [url=]chapter and notes on Asteroids?  I'm not accusing you of being wrong, I'm just urging you to make sure you haven't missed *anything* before you consider talking to him.

You might consider that when you google on {origin asteroids} you will pull up a list of about 1,900,000 websites.  Look at which one is number one.  It looks like Brown's ideas are being considered by many.  It might behoove you to actually discuss the matter with the man himself if for no other reason than to point out where you think he's wrong.  He would be interesting in your findings.  

Now, please, please, please don't berate me as I'm trying to be good and not tease, taunt and flirt excessively.  Thank you very much.

Lets see....

The currently popular explanation for asteroids is that they are bodies that did not merge to become a planet. Never explained is how, in nearly empty space, matter merged to become these rocky bodies in the first place,4 why rocky bodies started to form a planet but stopped,5 or why it happened only between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.

Walt Brown, it seems, has never heard of gravity. This isn't going well for him so far...

The funny thing is, later on, he says the large asteroids were created when the rocks blown off earth came together under gravity - a claim he just said doesn't work.


Consequently, many rocks, assisted by their mutual gravity and surrounding clouds of water vapor, merged to become asteroids.

But, of course, that time was special. It couldn't have possibly happened in the early solar system


In general, orbiting rocks do not merge to become either planets or asteroids.

Or not! I guess the bit about the rocks from earth merging together is impossible too.

In fact, during the 4,600,000,000 years evolutionists say asteroids have existed, asteroids would have had so many collisions that they should be much more fragmented than they are today.

I got a kick out of this just because it shows real reason for Walt's ramblings. He makes a slip here.

What does evolution have to do with astrophysics and cosmology? I'd certainly like to know!

This slip shows he doesn't really care about any of that, its just ramblings because he doesn't like evolution

I also love how his explanation for asteroids ending up in their current orbits depends on drag from water.

Maybe I should add in some drag forces to my sim - that would demonstrate that drag will reduce the energy in the orbit, not increase it. You need to give a major boost in velocity at the right point to boost up to a circular orbit in the asteroid belt. Rocks blasted off earth and then effected by drag forces would have just been drug back down and hit earth even more often.

He also talks about thrust produced by ice on an asteroid. The thrust produced would be very, very small. It would take millions of years to have any significant effect at all. Since Walt's universe is only a few thousand - nope. Not gonna happen.


The materials in meteorites and meteoroids are remarkably similar to those in the Earth’s crust.32 Some meteorites contain very dense elements, such as nickel and iron. Those heavy elements seem compatible only with the denser rocky planets: Mercury, Venus, and Earth—Earth being the densest.

Rocks which formed from the dust that made up the planetary disk are kind similar to other rocks which formed from the planetary disk. Shock. Horror.

As for his stuff about how hard it is to capture a moon - funny, the planets seem to manage it fairly often. And they don't' require gas clouds.

I think Walt's problem here is he's looking at the two body problem. It is indeed impossible with 2 bodies.

Lucky for us, there are more than 2 objects in the solar system. When you throw in other objects with gravitational effects, like say...the sun. Mars and Jupiter, which exert gravitational effects in the asteroid belt, it becomes far easier.

For a recent example of moon capture, look at Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9. Jupiter captured it sometime in the 1970s, and it spent several years orbiting before colliding with jupiter. (Due to orbital perturbations, nothing to do with gasses)

This post is probably getting kinda long, so I'll cut it off and look at more later. So far the impression is that Walt is clueless. He just make stuff up to support his existing YEC ideas, and it shows. Badly.

To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

  10200 replies since Mar. 17 2007,23:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (341) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]