Deep Impact

New jets

deepimpact.umd.edu/collab_pub/imagep.shtml
Image page
deepimpact.umd.edu/collab_pub/images/jetsnot.jpg

According to Dr. Walt Brown, comets (and asteroids and meteors) originated from earth at the onset of Noah's flood. His book "In the Beginning" can be read in it's entirety at www.creationscience.com . He predicts what the comets will be made of in predicition #25 which, aside from the obvious, includes loess, trace vegetation and bacteria and about twice the salt concentrations of our oceans. Comets did not bring life to earth. They originated from earth. Dr. Brown has a long standing offer for a debate that no one to this point has taken him up on yet. He has documented his work well. Check it out. I'd like to hear what you think about what he has written.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Unworthy1</i>
<br />According to Dr. Walt Brown, comets (and asteroids and meteors) originated from earth at the onset of Noah's flood.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">On its face, the idea sounds like a child's fantasy. Meteorites associated with comets are carbonaceous rock. There is no such rock native to Earth. The energy required to blast objects from Earth's surface out of Earth's gravity field would instantly vaporize any known substance. Then there is no way such comets could get from Earth to the Oort cloud. Did Noah's flood occur millions of years ago? The typical Oort cloud comet has an orbital period of 3 million years. What would have made comets so black? Some meteorites are suspected of carrying bacteria, but it definitely is not genetically related to terrestrial life because it has different chirality. Etc.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Dr. Brown has a long standing offer for a debate that no one to this point has taken him up on yet.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Such an idea could never get to the debate stage because it could never get past peer review in the first place. The purpose of peer review is to screen out the tens of thousands of wild-eyed, unscientific, non-viable ideas that are brought to the internet, often via web sites. Our site has recommendations about how to get feedback to prepare a manuscript for peer review. No cost procedures are described in the General Advice near the bottom of the page at: metaresearch.org/publications/PMRS/PMRS.asp

In this case, I am sure the peer review experience will not be a pleasant one because the author seems too uninformed about too many facts and too inexperienced in the whole scientific process to know how to critique his own ideas and to remove bias from his thought processes. Without such measures (called "controls" in scientific method), we all tend to convince ourselves that the ideas we find attractive are true. That is one reason the world has so many mutually contradictory religions. -|Tom|-

This Oort cloud that you speak of sounds a bit like fantasy also, considering that it has never actually been observed. Why hasn't either of the Voyager spacecrafts or Hubble seen any evidence of this "cloud"? Dr. Brown's book is well documented. His theory makes predictions, several of which have been confirmed. If you throw out every reference to "religion" or the Bible, he still has a much more believeable, logical and scientifically supported explanation of earth's geological history than evolutionary science does. Fantasy is particles to people. Fantasy is believing that our DNA "just happened". Fantasy is comets colliding and "creating" our earth. The religion of naturalism takes far more faith (and imagination) than believing the Scriptures of the Bible, which has proven itself to be the Truth for hundreds and thousands of years. But I can not convince anyone by arguing about it. If anyone reading this is openminded enough to really want to know the truth, you will read his book and then make your decisions. Those "biased" as you say, will continue to read only those things that support their naturalisic world view. I can't say as I blame them. I wasn't so different at one time, and neither was Dr.Brown. Have a nice eternity...

Actually none of the orginal text for the Bible exists, so we dont know what its supposed to say. And the current Bible is 5 "editions" removed from the original Bible.
And how is it that humans can edit the word of God and say that it is correct.
I believe in God(or Allah, Buddah, Yahweh, etc) and the universe and everything in it that was made, but the Bible is a human invention. And to believe that God is personal enough to "come down" and bless only you out of all the universe is fantasy. Using the Bible to support your arguments is circular logic. Nonsecular proof to support your arguments is slim to nonexistant.
Sorry for the rant. On to science.

OK, you were not reading carefully enough. Dr. Brown uses REAL SCIENCE to demonstrate his theory. No Bible needed. It just so happens that since Noah's flood is a historical event, he includes the Biblical information about it. When the Bible speaks of "scientific" things, it is completely accurate. By the way, the Bible (or Scriptures) is the best documented book of antiquity - by far. If the Bible is not God's Word and it has changed so much over the years, could you please tell us these obvious errors? Man has not made any significant changes, but if it were so, errors should be easy to find. The evidence shows that the Bible we have today is essentially (most differences in the manuscripts are things like spelling and punctuation. Nothing that affects doctrine.) unchanged from the earliest known copies of the ancient manuscripts. No other book of antiquity can compare to the number of manuscripts, the consistency of the information, nor the proximity of the earliest manuscript to the original date of writing - none come close. Yet few people question the works of Homer, Caesar, Plato or Aristotle, yet they are not nearly as well supported as the Scriptures. Read Dr. Browns science and make your arguments against it.