Creation Cosmologies Solve Spacecraft Mystery

ICR ^ | October 1, 2007 | Dr. Russell Humphreys

[GodGunsGuts]

As I stated to another FReeper, I can see why you’re incredulous... the article assumes the reader is familiar with Dr. Humphreys’ book. That’s my fault. I should have known better. All I can say is, if you find his claims intriguing, then read the additional links I provided. All the best—GGG

[GodGunsGuts]

Not sure. However, I find is Biblically-based cosmology very convincing. See the other links I posted (#6 and #12)—GGG

[GodGunsGuts]

Love your tagline...and oh so true!

[Coyoteman]

Here’s a link to another summary and his technical paper mentioned in his original post:

Summary:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5181/

Technical paper:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/journal_of_creation/vol21/5181creationist.pdf

That's what I like.

Technical scientific papers published, not in technical scientific journals, but on creationist websites.

That sure engenders a lot of confidence!

If you have real science, you can get it published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. If you have creation "science" you are limited to creationist websites.

[GodGunsGuts]

No big. Same thing happens to me all the time...although for different reasons :o(

I find my contributions to this forum derive from bursts of energy that that find their outlet in rare and rapidly diminishing free time. But somehow, I always find my way back...sooner or later.

[elephantlips]

This post is interesting and deserves contemplation. Theories, as it regards this highly complex field, are usually addressed by people who have some sense and knowledge of the subject matter.(Which I do not) What this is not, is an area which can indulge opinions as in, “I prefer red cars over blue cars,” or, “I like my steak rare as opposed to well done.” Unfortunately, there are too many of the latter. My heat shields are up.

[AntiKev]

Self-ping for later reading.

[GodGunsGuts]

It’s quite the opposite, Coyoteman. The real science of interpreting the data occurs on Creationist and ID websites...unlike the mindless gathering of information that passes for science at Darwin approved institutions.

[Coyoteman]

It’s quite the opposite, Coyoteman. The real science of interpreting the data occurs on Creationist and ID websites...unlike the mindless gathering of information that passes for science at Darwin approved institutions.

That's just an amazing statement!

Thank you for making your views on science and religion perfectly clear.

[Captain Beyond]

bump

Thanks for posting link to article.

[balch3]

Bump!

[R_Kangel]

Deja vu

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>Love your tagline...and oh so true!<<<

I read it in a post on a blog — I forget where. I thought it would be a great tagline, so I grabbed it.

[GodGunsGuts]

The truth hurts Darwinists. But if you have a candid conversation with most any Darwin approved scientist, they will tell you that the majority of their efforts are a complete waste of time. Their mostly worthless data gathering could fill up countless phone books with just the abstracts alone. It takes someone like a Newton or a Kelvin or a Pasteur (all creationists btw) to separate the wheat from the endless piles of chaff and make some sense out of it all.

[GodGunsGuts]

BTW, I’m still waiting for your “scientific” refutation of Humphreys’ cosmology. But I won’t hold my breath, because I have notice that on every real scientific controversy between Creationists and the Church of Darwin you are strangely silent.

[Coyoteman]

The truth hurts Darwinists. But if you have a candid conversation with most any Darwin approved scientist, they will tell you that the majority of their efforts are a complete waste of time. Their mostly worthless data gathering could fill up countless phone books with just the abstracts alone. It takes someone like a Newton or a Kelvin or a Pasteur (all creationists btw) to separate the wheat from the endless piles of chaff and make some sense out of it all.

Keep digging, you are getting your hole deeper and deeper. Far be it from me to discourage you.

Were Newton and Kelvin doing apologetics, or were they following the scientific method? That little detail makes a big difference.

Signed: a "Darwin approved scientist."

[CottShop]

[[BTW, I’m still waiting for your “scientific” refutation of Humphreys’ cosmology. But I won’t hold my breath]]

That’s good advice not to- He’s a hit and runner- in quick with hte same lame insults- out like a bolt of lightening when pressed to back up his acusations with anythign resembling the truth and facts.

[Kevmo]

I thought SubQuantum Kinetics explained the Pioneer Anomaly, but it’s written by a hokey guy and I don’t have enough background to analyze it.

SubQuantum Kinetics, wide ranging unifying cosmology theory by Dr. Paul LaViolette
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1884938/posts
Posted by Kevmo
On News/Activism 08/22/2007 12:00:43 PM PDT · 67 replies · 1,103+ views

THE STARBURST FOUNDATION ^ | January 2007 | Dr. Paul LaViolette

[CottShop]

[[If you have real science, you can get it published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.]]

Yes GGG- You know- that ‘real science’ like the science that ignores biological impossibilities, that ‘real science’ that claims entropy isn’t a problem for macroevolution when it most certainly is a problem for absolutely every other living and non living thing on this planet, that ‘real science’ that is based on by guess by gosh assumptions abotu past events and ignores the fact that the very energy needed to ‘create’ the impossible would have destroyed life right from ther very start and at every point along the way. That ‘real science’ that gets published in peer reviews- not the ‘psuedo-sciecne that points out the serious insurmountable biologically impossible problems with the ‘real science’- Don’t ya know nuttin? Sheeesh!!! Oh- and there’s absolutely NO bias in the peer review system- nope- no sirreee- none what so ever (provided that those hwo present material that is nothign but proevolution sign the “I beleive in naturalistic miracles and a naturalistic god that directed those miracles, and denouince anyone who dissagrees with me’ statement of faith) No bias whatsoever- why it’s the friendliest most open arms cult- errr- review process aroiund- and anyone that doesn’t have hteir owrk published in proevo only publications isn’t a ‘true scientist’ Gosh- I thought everyone knew that?

[GodGunsGuts]

LOL...And in keeping with Darwinian impossibilities, I dub you the serious comedian. Well done!