This is a big part of why I can't take 'Doctor' Walt Brown very seriously:
"Many space exploration programs tried to learn how the Earth, Moon, and solar system evolved. Ironically, not one of these questions has been answered, and for scientists who start with evolutionary assumptions, many perplexing problems have arisen. For example, after the $20,000,000,000 Moon exploration program, no evolutionist can explain with any knowledge and confidence how the Moon formed. Those who try encounter either a barrage of scientific objections or resort to philosophical speculations."
Not that I should NEED to point this out, but sadly a man with a doctorate wrote it and so maybe I do need to. The fact of the matter is, <b>evolutionists study evolution not cosmology!</b>. Not being able to explain for certain how something happened doesn't mean that another equally unproven theory is right. It just means they're all equally unproven. Following this absurd statement he goes on to accuse the rest of the scientific field of doing the exact same thing he is doing. Sort of sounds like a hypocrite to me, and the bible has very few good things to say about hypocrites!
Dr. Brown says: "Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment"
Clearly Dr. Brown has never studied aggriculture. Everything from corn to cannabis has changed in beneficial ways quite dramatically through both natural selection and breeding. Did you know the first corn the Europeans encountered was many times smaller than the corn we are familiar with today?
Cannabis is probably the most interesting for a very good reason: It's not legal. Why is that important? Well, that means that it's wild populations are not influenced by widescale breeding programs, nor is there any serious genetic engineering being done on it. Despite this, a plant from around Tibet has become a feature of every single continent on this planet except for Anarctica. All were introduced by mankind except in it's area of origin. In North Africa, strains of cannabis flower based on the light cycle of the tropics, resist UV more heavily and are more tolerant to heat and humidity. Strains that have run wild in North America, particularly Canada have become more resistant to cold, block less UV and flower based on the available solar cycle. We have plenty of direct proof of significant evolution in very short periods of time. The murderous nature of nature itself is a very strong motivator. Dr. Brown has no evidence at all on his website to validate that statement. Even very short periods of observation in the timescale evolution takes place at can show some very clear evidence for it. He even uses the entire term "macroevolution" very poorly. He tries to make it a simple statement of genetic complication, where in fact it's far more sophisticated than that. It has a lot more to do with success than complexity. That's why some types of creatures simply haven't evolved at all for a few billion years; their designs are as good as they need to be.
Dr. Brown said: "Nor did giraffes get long necks because their ancestors stretched to reach high leaves. While almost all evolutionists agree that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, many unconsciously slip into this erroneous belief."
I'm beginning to think Dr. Brown got his doctorate in a special ed program. Evolutionists don't say that giraffe's have long necks because their ancestors stretched to reach the high leaves. They say they have long necks because the creatures of the past who had the longer necks were able to find more to eat than the shorter-necked creatures. The ones who were less able to find food due to competition DIED. In turn, each following generation continued this trend, with the necks getting longer because those who expressed longer necks, most likely through mutation or some other process, got the food and the others did not. The only thing such development as stretching to reach higher leaves has on evolution is that it becomes an inherent behavior. This is why cats like to poop in one place, or squirrels pick certain trees to live in and ignore other types completely. Dr. Brown fails so many times to even demonstrate familiarity with the theories he badmouths that I couldn't possibly fit all of the mistakes in a single response! If you're going to cite someone at least cite someone with proper familiarity with that which he talks so much trash about. Even if he ever did encounter evidence that evolution theory wasn't correct, he'd never realize it because he's so ignorant of what the evolution theory actually says.
You believe Dr. Brown because you want to believe him. He is so blatently incorrect on so many things that no serious scientist is going to give him any credibility. The fact that he supports the bible is more damaging to the bible than helpful.
The topic of this thread was supposed to be the 10th planet anyway, not evolution, and certainly not religion. Like Dr. Brown, you're attacking Mr. Van Flandern's theories when you don't even actually understand them. You don't care to understand them because you are already convinced you cannot be wrong, and he cannot be right. That's the fundmental arrogance of dogma and why it's not of any value to anyone truly interesting in learning. If he is wrong, show us exactly where his model fails logically, without resorting to arrogant assumptions that totally disregard his theory without looking at it. Tom has been in his business a very long time and is very good at what he does. I have no doubt he's several times your age as well, so maybe you should at least take a little time to listen to him instead of letting what he says go in one ear and out the other and then laughing at it.
"Regret can only change the future" -Me
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." Frank Herbert, Dune 1965
