Comments on: Could Creationist Walt Brown be Right About Comets?

By: leake10

leake10 — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:59:16 +0000

On Jan 14, 2006, Dr. Walt Brown accurately predicted (in an email received by me and others) what would be found in the Stardust space probe which landed on earth the next day. On April 29, 2006, Dr. Brownlee from the University of Washington (and the father of the Stardust mission), gave a lecture at the University about the preliminary results of the Stardust mission (I was there and have a recording). His lecture to the hundreds attending included statements that he was shocked, surprised and otherwise stumped by what was captured by Stardust (crystals that only form in high temperature and pressure, minerals that only form in liquid water, etc.). He could offer no explanation and didn’t know when he could. After the lecture I gave him a copy of Dr. Brown’s predicting email and a copy of Dr. Brown’s web version of the comet chapter. I told him that the reason he was shocked, but Dr. Brown was not, was because Dr. Brown had a scientifically sound argument for the origin of all comets. On August 18, 2009, I made a follow-up call to Dr. Brownlee at the University of Washington because NASA had just made an announcement that the amino acid glycine was also captured by the Stardust probe. Dr. Brownlee and other astronomers were also shocked by this (but Dr. Brown was not). For more than 10 minutes, Dr. Brownlee and I talked about the problems associated with standard theories on the origin of comets and about how all these problems are non-existent for Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory. Dr. Brownlee told me he still had not read Dr. Brown’s work but he requested that I send him the link to Dr. Brown’s web book, which I did. He did not treat me like I was a nut case. He knows he has problems. So those above who think they can spout off with emotional nonsense rather than scientific rebuttal should take a lesson from Dr. Brownlee and go read Dr. Brown’s work. Good luck trying to refute the physics.

By: porzitski

porzitski — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:26:22 +0000

Sadly, I’m not surprised by the level of vehemence and outright disrespect shown Dr. Brown by three of the four posters on this thread. Evolution doctrine does not suffer any conflicting theories, and its adherents must protect themselves (and their rice bowl).
However, the level of misdirection in the above comments is just too great to ignore. First, “it’s Just Rubbish!” is not much of a critique. Second, “reports you quote … show the comet [Wild2] to be 2 billion y/o and contain bits of other stars – - a statement like that ought to have at least SOME chance of the writer offering proof other than someone else said so. Third, if I understand the evolutionists’ theory at all, estimates of the number of comets in the solar system SHOULD be in the trillions, at least, but I ask the writer if trillions (or any for that matter) have been observed out there in the Oort cloud. I can answer the question though – - no, they haven’t. Presumptions based on flawed interpretations sometimes put numbers up into the 12 to 15-digits, but the basis of my complaint here is that, unlike most of the facts and ideas Dr. Brown relies on in his work, this item and the rest cited in these learned posts here have no truth about them – they’ve never been observed. Neither has the miracle of bazillions of years needed for any of this to work been observed. I’ll tell you what HAS been observed – about 5000 years of human history.

By: lordkalvan

lordkalvan — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 15:41:45 +0000

Further to my last comment, there are a number of problems with Brown’s ideas, not the least being that astronomers estimate the number of comets within the Solar System in the trillions. Brown cannot seriously propose that such a number originated from Earth (50,000 is several orders of magnitude less than trillions) and, if he cannot do this, then neither can he reasonably propose a terrestrial origin for some but not others, if only because he provides no evidential mechanism for distinguishing amongst them. Indeed, his estimate for the numbers of comets is so at variance with the numbers estimated by cosmologists that the whole idea seems to originate in the realms of fantasy.

Another problem with proposing a terrestrial origin for comets would be the frictional effects of the Earth’s atmosphere on material launched at escape velocity. Unlike rockets, for example, which accelerate relatively slowly and under constant acceleration, the hypothesized ‘subterranean chambers’ would have to impart sufficient launch velocity at source to escape Earth’s gravity well. This would reduce any launched material to plasma and offer little chance of it coalescing in the manner described.

By: lordkalvan

lordkalvan — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:57:49 +0000

I understand further Stardust reports on the net indicate that Wild 2 analysis supports pre-existing theories about cometary origins and give no credence to the idea that comets have a terrestrial origin – search google under Stardust/Wild 2 to find some of these. I also thinks the reports you quote refer to the age of Wild 2 being measured in the billions of years and that Wild 2 stardust grains include material from other stars. I wonder how any of these facts can be used to argue support for Brown’s theories?

By: improvius

improvius — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:55:12 +0000

You can see Brown’s hypothesis get demolished in these links:

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=226928

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=226646

By: jukia

jukia — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:40:19 +0000

Brown is not correct. He is wrong on every issue. Does he pay you to shill for him? We all know he refuses to debate and refuses (or rather is unable to) to publish his theory or any portion of it in any peer reviewed journal because it is such a total pile of rubbish.