Global Flood gains astronomical fix

Comet Halley was launched during the Global Flood
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Center for Scientific Creation and the Creation Science Hall of Fame separately announced today that an astronomical date for the Global Flood is now available.

This date for the Global Flood is the date that the five most clock-like of all comets, that astronomers have observed three or more times, were all at perihelion in the same year. Or they would have been at perihelion if comets existed before the Global Flood. (Perhaps they were, anyway, if the Flood predated this common perihelion.)

Hydroplate Theory: comet matter launched at the Global Flood

Dr. Walter T. Brown Jr., Director of the CSC, explains the problem here. According to his Hydroplate Theory, the Global Flood began when a subcrustal ocean, once ten miles deep underground, broke confinement and rushed out of the bowels of the earth, at hypersonic speed. This enormous jet of water carried large amounts of rock and mud with it. Some of it – amounting to less than one percent of the earth’s mass – escaped into outer space at speeds up to (and sometimes faster than) 32 miles per second.

Anything moving faster than that, would go out of the solar system and never come back. But most of this material stayed in the solar system. Some of it, as it moved beyond the earth’s gravitational field, accreted into the dirty snowballs we call comets. The rock and mud tended to collect into the asteroids and meteoroids we see today.

Critics sometimes accuse Dr. Brown of saying that the Global Flood launched fully formed comets into the sky. This is not correct. What is correct is that the Global Flood launched into space the material that later formed the comets.

How to back-step comets

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Back-stepping a comet usually means calculating a comet’s momentum and every force (usually of gravity) acting on it, and projecting where that comet must have been, one day earlier. One then repeats the process, day after day after day. Modern computers can do this for any comet – up to three thousand years into the past. They cannot project a comet’s path any further backward in time, or at least not with any usable degree of accuracy. Every such back-step is subject to an error, that grows exponentially.

So to back-step a comet further than three thousand years ago, one starts with the most ancient known perihelion, or closest approach to the sun, and subtracts the comet’s period (or “cometary year”) from that date, as many times as the problem needs. One introduces an error with every subtraction, equal to the standard deviation of the period. This error varies as the square root of the number of subtractions, according to the Central Limit Theorem.

One needs to observe and record a comet at least three times to compute the standard deviation of its period. The best five comets in the Catalog of Cometary Orbits of 2008, that have three or more observations and periods that do not change much between apparitions, are the Comets Swift-Tuttle, Halley, Pons-Brooks, Olbers, and Brorsen-Metcalf. For Comets Halley and Swift-Tuttle, Dr. Brown had available the results of computer simulations that accurately placed their earliest known perihelia well into the BC era.

Result: the most likely date of the launch of all cometary matter, and therefore of the Global Flood, is: 3344.5 BC, ± 1 year. Dr. Brown assigns better than 96 percent confidence to this date.

What this means

This date is actually “high summer of 3345 BC” and is the date for the closest approach to the sun. The true launch date would be in autumn of that year (or perhaps the year before then), when the courses (or “trajectories”) of the comets would all intercept the earth.

This date is within one year of a date your editor calculated for the Global Flood. To make this calculation, one works backward from 562 BC, the year of the death of Nebuchadnezzar II (“the Great”) of Babylonia. From that date one subtracts(or rather, adds):

  1. 450 years, through the histories of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, to the groundbreaking of Solomon’s Temple.
  2. 479 years (per I Kings 6:1) to the Exodus of Israel from Egypt.
  3. 430 years (per Exodus 12:40) to the entry of Israel (the nation and the man also known as Jacob) into Egypt.
  4. 290 years to the birth of Abraham.
  5. 130 years to the birth of Terah, Abraham’s father.
  6. 1000 years to the birth of Arpachshad (Arphaxad), according to the ages of Terah’s ancestors when each man sired his son, according to the Alexandrine manuscript of the Septuagint.
  7. 2 years to the Global Flood year, per Genesis 11:10.

Result: 3343 BC as the year that Noah and his family disembarked from the Ark. The Global Flood itself would have broken out a year earlier.

Settling of scholarly scores

This date settles many old scores in Biblical scholarship, especially about the chronology of the Bible. This essay sums up the details. Briefly:

  1. Edwin R. Thiele decided the chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah could not be straightforward, if King Ahab of Israel fought in the Battle of Qarqar against Shalmaneser III (853 BC), and if (as he supposed) King Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser III during his reign. But Dr. Thiele forgot one thing: forty-five names in the Assyrian Eponym Canon are missing. Tiglath-Pileser III struck them from the record. Martin Anstey worked out what must have happened. With Anstey’s account, Israelite and Assyrian histories do synchronize, with a straightforward reading of I and II Kings.
  2. Some scholars take Galatians 3:17 as saying that 430 years passed from Abraham receiving his covenant promise from God until the Exodus. In fact, God confirmed and repeated the promise to Jacob before he entered Egypt.
  3. The Seder Olam asserts that Abraham was born when Terah was 70 years old. This supposition never had a good warrant. Dr. Brown’s astronomical fix contradicts this.
  4. Finally: the translation of the Old Testament by Ptolemy Philadelphus’ Seventy Translators of the Great Library of Alexandria was accurate – and accurate to the year.

But this manuscript of the Septuagint, that too many scholars dismiss, is not the only thing that an astronomical fix for the Global Flood vindicates. This date, coming within a year of the calculated chronological date, vindicates the Bible itself. It also vindicates the Hydroplate Theory of the Global Flood. A Global Flood happened, and happened as Walter T. Brown says it happened.The “cluster of perihelia” of the five comets Dr. Brown examined, defies any “rational(ized) explanation.”

Within twenty years, other comets, that astronomers have so far observed only twice, will make their third apparition. If the Lord tarries until then, Dr. Brown will run his analysis again. He does not expect his analysis to change, except to raise the already-high confidence level in his Global Flood date even higher.

[subscribe2]

Editor-in-chief at | + posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

89 Responses to Global Flood gains astronomical fix

  1. […] Reprinted from Conservative News and Views […]

  2. JT says:

    It’s amazing. Walt’s hydroplate “theory” – totally untested, non-reviewed, etc, etc – has been debunked time and time again on this very blog and yet you persist with this sort of thing.

    It really is kinda sad. I’m guessing that the Oort Cloud is just a liberal myth then.

    I wish you’d do the math – all the water to cover the highest mountain, plus fly off to the Moon, Mars, Mercury and create all the comets. Do you have any idea how much water that is – if it was all underground, then the planet would have been much larger, with much higher gravity, and there’s no way we could have survived in a higher gravity with our body shape.

    Then again, from the last arguments about this, you said that vapour trails are proof that water at high pressure wouldn’t be superheated, so I’m not really surprised.

    Also, calling yourself “the creation science hall of fame” is a bit presumptious, isn’t it? Where can we visit it?

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      You again.

      For everyone else’s information, you can follow the link at the top of the article to the Creation Science Hall of Fame. Also for everyone else’s information, we are now a 501(c)(3) organization.

      The rest of the comments here bespeak willful ignorance (see 2 Peter 3:5) of the Hydroplate Theory and of the initial conditions of the earth. The Himalaya chain formed when the earth’s crust had already broken up into the great Hydroplates. Three of them crashed into one another, and the Himalayas formed at Ground Zero. The other great mountain chains of the world formed as wrinkles on the plates as they settled to the bottom of the old subcrustal ocean with a crash.

      It may interest most people (other than this – person) that you find sedimentary rock, and even sea fossils, atop the Continental Divide. And while no one claims that the water reached as high as that, Dr. Brown says the Divide didn’t exist until the Flood came.

      Of course, I urge people who want to do more than rant and rave, to read the book. All of it.

      The Oort Cloud is definitely a myth. Jan Oort came up with an excuse for the comets still shining after all the time he and other uniformitarians insist has passed. But as Dr. Brown shows, that theory falls to the ground on a number of deal-killers. How could comets even form that far out? How do you get ice on the Moon and Mercury? Why do cometary tales have crystalline dust? Why has no one ever observed a comet coming in toward earth on a hyperbolic path? How in the world does a comet, falling in from the distance of the so-called Oort sphere, dive inside the orbit of the earth around the Sun, as Comet Halley has been doing, faithfully, every 76 years since its launch? Why do you get a whole bunch of comets with very short periods, and another bunch of comets with very long periods, and almost no comets in-between? What’s with Jupiter’s Family of comets, that have aphelia not much further out from the Sun than Jupiter gets? What’s with the higher-than-usual concentration of deuterium in comets? (That might sound like a deal-killer for the Hydroplate Theory, until you read that the Flood event let loose a sea of neutrons, which the waters of the great deep absorbed – before they shot out into space and never returned.) Why the small comets?

      Oh, and one more thing: the idea behind the Oort cloud is that a passing star disturbs it enough to send comets falling in toward the inner solar system. All right, Ms. Amateur Astronomer, suppose you tell us where we can point our telescopes to find that star?

      In contrast, we have the five most clock-like comets in the catalog, all of which were in the same place at the same time, precisely (that is, within one year, the margin of standard error) when the Bible says the Global Flood happened. Read my calculations. I have told you where I got them, and (in one case) from what manuscripts, and where the confusion crept in. You can no more explain that away than you can fly under your own power (without the aid of any device of man, that is to say).

  3. DonnyC says:

    Does this mean that Dr. Brown rejects the Ussher chronology? Ussher pegged the date of creation at 4004 BC.. So they both can’t be correct because that would mean that Adam was still alive (and Noah hadn’t even been born yet) at the time of the Flood.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Dr. Brown – and I – accept one part of James Ussher’s chronology: the lists of the Kings of Israel and Judah. Edwin R. Thiele foreshortened those by 45 years, to synchronize King Ahab of Israel (Northern Kingdom) with the Battle of Qarqar (against Shalmaneser III). I believe that battle took place. I believe that Ahab was part of an anti-Assyrian alliance that fought in that battle. But I also believe it took place 45 years earlier than most Assyriologists insist. Martin Anstey, more than 100 years ago, provided the key that everybody else discounted: 45 years of the Assyrian Eponym Canon are missing, after Tiglath-Pileser III struck them from the record. (History in those days was propaganda. The Egyptians were masters of altering their own history, but it is only logical to suppose that the Assyrians knew about managed history, too. Some people think things haven’t changed all that much from Tiglath-Pileser’s day, but that’s a story in another topic.)

      We also accept Ussher’s assumption that Abraham was born when his father was 130 years old.

      But: Dr. Brown and I do not accept the other assumptions that Ussher made, namely the Short Chronology of the Sojourn in Egypt, and the Masoretic Chronology of the Patriarchs from Shem to Terah. I found a translation of a manuscript (Codex Alexandrinus) of the Septuagint that gives each patriarch’s age when he sired his son. Those ages tot up to 1000 years. Which yields a result within one year of Dr. Brown’s cometary result.

      Remember: he provided a convergence of cometary perihelia, which is the best proxy we have, with our current level of computing power, for a common cometary launch. I provided a retrocalculation of the date of the Global Flood from patriarchal and king lists, and two key epochal notes: “In the 480th year following the Exodus,” and “Now the sojourn of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was 430 years.”

  4. Geno says:

    In order…

    First: congratulations on CSHF getting their tax exempt status.

    Second: Isn’t history pretty much always propaganda? After all it’s written by the winners.

    Third: Can we expect Dr. Brown to present his new findings in a scientific forum for analysis and review by the scientific community …. even creation scientists?

  5. MatthewJ says:

    It sounds as though the perigees were plotted backward in time and a least-squares regression was used to find a date that had the closest ‘clustering’ of perigees; or perhaps the closest clustering within a certain time limit. The details of the method are not given, so I’m guessing. It also sounds as though some Monte Carlo resamplings were run with the perigees being shifted by up to half a period – perhaps one at a time, or maybe for all comets simultaneously. Can you provide us with more information?

    How wide is the spread of perigees at 3344 B.C., by the way? Even if it is the tightest grouping, it looks as though it occurs over forty or more years, rather than all in one year. Doesn’t that represent a problem? That wide of a span means some comets are near apogee while others are at perigee, but in the Flood year they should have all been near perigee within months of each other.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      You mean perihelia, I believe – no one ever said that comets orbit the earth; only that the material that went into their making, launched from earth. Of course, you could have said “periapsides” (plural of “periapsis”), and that would have done just as well.

      I’ll pass that along. Dr. Brown is willing to share his math with anyone. In fact, as I believe I announced, the likely error is a year and a half. If you’re getting forty years or more for that spread, Dr. Brown would like to see your math.

  6. JT says:

    Yes, me again – sorry I keep popping up and asking awkward questions. Strange thing is, my password was suddenly invalid and requests for a new password went answered. Glad to see the automated system is back up and running.

    Now then, you base this on only 5 comets. Why so few? Or are these the only ones that you can squish into your theory? Also, where are Walt’s calculations (you’ll have to understand that I’ll start calling him Dr Brown when he starts acting like a scientist) that prove this “theory” – after all, there are a lot more comets than just 5.

    And quoting the Bible to prove the Bible is such an unscientific method, that I actually laughed out loud when I read your bit about the Himalayas. I’d also forgotten that you don’t believe in plate techtonics, You also seem to have forgotten that if the water did indeed explode from beneath the earth at escape velocity, it wuld have been suoer-heated to the extent that it would have basically steam-cleaned the planet, including a bunch of people on a little wooden boat. Not to mention whatever was left in the sea.

    Unfortunately, yelling “because I said so!” does not make a theory valid. Hopefully Walt will be submitting his findings – including how these comets came about in the first place – for independent review.

    Oh and just another question on the Creation Hall of Fame – seeing as you favour the hydroplate theory, does that mean that anybody who is in favour of the water canopy theory is automatically excluded? After all, you can’t have people with wildly different – and untested, unproven, etc – theories in there. If only there was some kind of peer review within creation “science” circles – but there isn’t, so anybody can push any theory, not matter how contradictory.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      The comets named are those having the least standard deviations – among those that have a standard deviation. To get a standard deviation, a comet must appear, and someone must record that apparition, three or more times. Statistical properties are never valid if you base them on just one or two instances.

      Now in twenty years, a few more comets will come back to get on record for the third time. That is, if the Lord waits that long. But then again, the Creation Science Hall of Fame does not try to be the Last-Things Science Hall of Fame.

      I cited certain verses that bear on chronology, to show that the astronomical date agrees with this chronology. We have that agreement, and that shows that we have our common launch date, unless anyone can definitely show otherwise.

      As an aside: the Creation Science Hall of Fame recognizes those who accept Genesis 1-11 as a Valid Historical Record. Whatever scientific models they can propose, that would be consistent with that Record, do not bear on their inclusion or exclusion. Reputation, effort, and effectiveness in communicating the basic message – those are what matter. Of course we judge that by somewhat different rules than do you.

  7. gonetogalt says:

    @ JT…
    I’m new here, and I’m going to jump into this with a slightly off subject post, I do hope it’s welcome.
    I ‘m not sure if you are a uniformitarian or a creationist who disagrees with Dr. Brown, but I make my living as a miner/prospector, so correct interpretation of my local geology is more than a passing interest, for me it’s survival.

    (I’m going to comment directly on your post later, but first this.)

    I’m presently working in Guyana, and in particular near Kaieteur falls on the river Potaro. You can easily check some aerial photos to confirm what I’m going to suggest here.
    First, let me state that most of Guyana was evidently ‘scrubbed clean and smooth’ down to bedrock, IMHO by flood waters in rapid motion. Some computer modeling has suggested that if the landmasses were submerged high speed whirlpools would develop
    through lunar /tidal forces. Only something along that line would explain thousands of sq miles of regularity in surface features. The ancesteral bedrock is now weathered to saprolite to 200-300 ft depth, but the surface of the saprolite when revealed shows amazing similarity of smoothness. This saprolite is generally covered with a quartz gravel ranging from a few inches to a few feet in thickness. Above the gravel is quartz sand seldom more than 30 feet thick, often much less, but sometimes deep. A good deal of this quite level surface hosts later volcanic extrusives, laterite, which form low hills, few hundred feet high usually. These laterites plus block faulting make up virtually all surface topography in the country now. The game changer is that the quartz gravel and sand wasn’t laid down in a streambed formation. This is what we mine, the gold shows up in the gravel near bedrock (saprolite now), and lesser in the sand, so this a subject of intense interest to me. So the takeaway here is that the only possible mechanism to explain this gravel/sand is the sorting by liquification that would take place if the continent were in fact sliding along at Dr. Browns suggest velocity. I propose that near the end of South Americas run west these deposits settled essentially as they are now, contemporaneously the laterites popped out and massive block faulting occurred, bringing us to Kaieteur Falls. I could write for an hour on how this impacts gold formation, but it’s more off topic and proprietary.

    So, the lower Potaro River is now a sluggish 200 yd wide flow losing about 1-2 ft elevation per mile. Kaietuer Falls is 700 ft vertical drop (sheer vertical drop) from the upper Potaro block.
    The upper Potaro is again, a 100-200 yd wide sluggish river, as the block sits nearly normal, level.

    If you’ve found your air photos yet, notice the lower Potaro canyon is fairly short as it eroded it’s way into the upper Potaro block. Notice the near vertical walls and the sheer vertical walls at the actual falls. Notice the near perfect semicircle less than a mile wide delineating the canyon head and the tiny flow (in comparison) of the present Potaro river. Notice that the present river channel hasn’t cut the lip of the falls back, the river cascades off of a near perfect horizontal plane.

    It’s pretty obvious that the lower Potaro (part of the upper block) channel was cut by a huge flow of water whilst the sediments were still unconsolidated (recently deposited, fully hydrated), and after the block faulting event. Then the block tilted a bit to send the remaining flood runoff back to the SW, allowing the upthrust block to consolidate (let the cement dry), at some later time, maybe quite recently, the block tilted back to the north, the present Potaro followed it’s old course, and we have a falls that looks like was sculpted yesterday.
    Please feel free to comment on my observations.

    Anyway, to your snarky comment re: creationist peer review.
    The creationist field is in fact dominated by a few authors and organizations who staked out their claims before Dr. Brown showed up on the scene. These folks have, IMO, sadly failed in relenquishing the field to a far superior general theory due to (?).
    Financial, prestige, pride, personalities????? All the above???
    I don’t know, but I was half uniformitarian, half creationist for 20 years of field work, saw Browns work around 1990 and never looked back.
    In other words, entrenched interests (think Galielio) will not relinquish the field without a fight. Now, consider the entrenched interests supporting uniformitarianism, and reason has no chance.

    I can’t do any of the math recently cited here on the heat/energy release of the hypothetical hydrochambers, I just know that with small tweaks this model has served me well for many years. My best friends here were two PHD geologists recently departed to a nearby country running an exploration program for a Major…when comparing notes on field questions, I always felt hydroplate provided a more reasonable, simpler explanation.

    Open your mind, welcome to the rabbit hole.

  8. JT says:

    “Dr. Brown is willing to share his math with anyone.”

    Except university astronomy and geology departments. If his findings are true, and they are confirmed, he’ll be the first creationist to win the Nobel Prize.

    So why isn’t he publishing his findings?

    And don’t say “It’s a conspiracy against us!” – they can’t debunk or prove a theory if you don’t submit it for peer review. In fact, this very lack of peer review is why there are so many conflicting creation and flood theories out there – anybody can come up with something and it doesn’t have to be based on previous work, or even reality. That’s why we get the hydroplate and water canopy theories (the latter which does allow for a far higher survival rate than the earth turning into a giant nuclear reactor).

    If Walt is so sure about his work, let him step up and submit it to his peers – not write a book, or hold a debate – submit the data and his thesis.

    otherwise, what does he have to hide?

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Dr. Brown will not refuse to upload his work to anyone who asks.

      Then again, I don’t expect geology or astronomy professors to ask. Because his conclusions threaten their cherished uniformitarian narratives.

  9. JT says:

    I’m sorry – “to anybody who asks”
    That’s not how it works. Einstein didn’t say “Oh I have this great theory about how mass is linked to energy. But I won’t show you, unless you ask..”

    How can people ask to see a new theory, if they don’t know it exists. The key is that research is “submitted” for review, they don’t ask for it. When you ran your lab tests, did you provide them, or hang on to them, until somebody said, “Where’s the results of that test I asked for last week?”

    I get the feeling that Walt (who once again isn’t acting like a scientist)) either didn’t say that and you’re acting as his spokesman, or he has something to hide.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Anyone who cares to know, knows that this new theory exists.

      The trouble is: those university astronomy and geology professors will likely reject Dr. Brown’s theory out-of-hand, and for one reason only: it purports to show that the Biblical narrative played out exactly as written.

  10. CowHammer says:

    “The trouble is: those university astronomy and geology professors will likely reject Dr. Brown’s theory out-of-hand, and for one reason only: it purports to show that the Biblical narrative played out exactly as written.”

    Seems like there’s a very easy way to test that.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      We have.

      Certainly the larger body of creation-oriented investigators have.

  11. Fergus Mason says:

    “All right, Ms. Amateur Astronomer, suppose you tell us where we can point our telescopes to find that star?”

    Right Ascension: 14h 29m 42.9487s
    Declination: -62° 40′ 46.141″
    Apparent Magnitude (V): 11.05

    That should do it.

  12. Fergus Mason says:

    “those university astronomy and geology professors will likely reject Dr. Brown’s theory out-of-hand”

    They DEFINITELY will if he doesn’t submit it.

    I suspect that the real problem here is the peer review process, which checks the methodology used. Given the unsafe and incorrect assumptions that riddle Brown’s work its chance of getting through peer review is nil. I assume he realises this, therefore he doesn’t submit it.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      No, it has nothing to do with that.

      It has to do with preserving The Narrative.

      The Atheistic Narrative.

      You wouldn’t notice that bias, because you share it. Sometimes to see the bias, you have to sit on the opposite side of the fence.

  13. Terry A. Hurlbut says:

    Proxima Centauri? Sorry. Too far away. Way too far away.

    I thought at first you were going to give the purely hypothetical coordinates of the factitious star called Nemesis, that some say has shaken loose swarms of comets from the Oort Cloud every 26 million years to cause Extinction Level Events.

    At least you gave the coordinates of an extant star. But no star that far away is going to create nearly as much disturbance as that. It is more likely to steal comets than to send them falling in.

  14. Fergus Mason says:

    “I thought at first you were going to give the purely hypothetical coordinates of the factitious star called Nemesis”

    Ah, no. I don’t believe in mysterious invisible brown dwarves, rogue planets heading for Earth or anything like that.

    “At least you gave the coordinates of an extant star. But no star that far away is going to create nearly as much disturbance as that. It is more likely to steal comets than to send them falling in.”

    Actually that’s not particularly true. Proxima Centauri is certainly close enough to be gravitationally bound to our system. It couldn’t steal comets because the Sun’s gravity is far stronger until WAY out past the Oort Cloud. However gravity, for the purposes of calculating orbits, is an acceleration. An acceleration is a change in velocity. Change the velocity of an orbiting comet even a little bit and you can shake it loose. The gravity of a massive object, even at Proxima Centauri’s distance, is capable of being the straw that broke the camel’s back.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Then why is Proxima Centauri still called Proxima Centauri, or Alpha Centauri C? Why not call it Nemesis and discard the brown-dwarf theory?

      In addition, the Oort Cloud theory has a larger number of deal-killers than the mere absence of a Nemesis.

  15. Fergus Mason says:

    “It has to do with preserving The Narrative.”

    Nope. “Preserving the narrative” is absolutely the LAST thing scientists want to do. Prizes go to the scientists that blow the narrative apart and replace it with something entirely new. If there was anything in Walt Brown’s ideas scientists would be all over them. After a paradigm shift like that anybody involved with the work would find Nobels being handed out with the rations. It wouldn’t even be necessary to invoke god; they could find some other explanation for the hydroplate event.

    The reason nobody would buy into Brown’s ideas is simple: they’re bonk. And unless he submits them for review they’re irrelevant bonk.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      In any discipline in operational science, your assessment is correct.

      But this is origins science. And that is fraught with bias.

  16. Geno says:

    Terry wrote:
    Anyone who cares to know, knows that this new theory exists.

    The trouble is: those university astronomy and geology professors will likely reject Dr. Brown’s theory out-of-hand, and for one reason only: it purports to show that the Biblical narrative played out exactly as written.

    Geno answers:
    Does that include the creation scientists as well? I know of at least two creation science journals that would be delighted to communicate these findings.

    Didn’t you tell us Dr. Brown doesn’t want to publish in them because they won’t give Brown the last word? Since the discussion would open with Brown presenting his findings, doesn’t that mean Brown wants both first and last word?

    In what way is that a fair or level playing field?

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Not the last word. Merely a public forum so that everything would be out in the open.

  17. MatthewJ says:

    You are entirely correct – I should have said perihelia.

    It’s not difficult to reverse engineer Dr. Brown’s method here. If you go back, stepwise, from a given perihelion for these five comets, you can compare them to a test date and sum the squares of the differences, then look for a minimum in that sum. Do this with enough comets and you hope that the errors that gradually accumulate because of the method cancel each other out.

    If you use Dr. Brown’s data from his Table 23 in the link you provided, that kind of regression indeed gives you a cluster of perihelia at 3344 BC, spread from 3341 to 3352 B.C.

    But this method is sensitive to the period chosen, and to a lesser extent, to the starting perihelion. My initial 40 year spread, for example, started with a different choice of periods, and I don’t know where Brown gets his digital conversion of dates from – how is 9/15/1812 = 1812.90, for example? It should be 1812.7. If you choose the _mean_ period rather than the _oldest_ period, for example, the tightest clustering is at 2300 B.C., and not nearly as close. If you go with the oldest _observed_ perihelion (that means 239 BC for Halley and 69 BC for Swift-Tuttle) you get a clustering of perihelia at 2830 BC (perihelia from 2826 to 2835, nine years) that’s tighter than Dr. Brown’s 3344 BC cluster (eleven years). Doesn’t that make it a better candidate?

    Does Dr. Brown have some reason to favor the choice of period that he used to perform these calculations? For the comets with only two observed periods, why prefer the older period when the newer one may or may not be more typical? If you are willing to discard all period data except the first period, why not include the comets with two perihelia observations and one period? Or use observed periods only, not projected ones? Did Dr. Brown perform any statistical tests to show that the growing uncertainty introduced by the stepping back of the perihelia was negated by the use of five comets? The author of one of Dr. Brown’s references did not want to extrapolate the motions of Halley’s comet back more than 1100 years from from the earliest recorded observation, even with the most advanced algorithm available; yet Dr Brown’s method blithely pushes back an additional 2000 years using only elementary school arithmetic. Peer review would likely have hammered this sort of thing out.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Dr. Brown might have chosen the autumnal equinox, rather than the hibernal solstice (or 1 January), as the turning-of-the-year.

      I imagine he selected the oldest period on this theory: periods of comets do not cycle. Every new period results from a perturbation in the comet’s orbit – and that perturbation is not cyclic.

      And he selected the oldest simulated period for the same reason: to jump off from a time nearest the launch event as possible, to avoid so many perturbations since.

      He would much prefer, as would I, to run every comet back to launch by step-wise computer simulation, one day at a time. But as he told me, and as I wrote in the article, not enough computing power exists in the universe, even in The Cloud or in a “distributed network,” to run a simulation like that. Not yet, anyway. Should the Lord tarry long enough for Moore’s Law to bring that kind of computing power into existence, then maybe he, or his successor(s), will run that simulation. (But some might suspect that any computer powerful enough to run that kind of simulation, might also be powerful enough to become self-aware.)

  18. Fergus Mason says:

    “Then why is Proxima Centauri still called Proxima Centauri”

    Why wouldn’t it be?

    “Why not call it Nemesis”

    WHY call it Nemesis? It has nothing to do with the hypothetical (but probably non-existent) Nemesis.

    “and discard the brown-dwarf theory?”

    It’s not a theory. It’s a hypothesis, and one that is neither good nor necessary.

    “In addition, the Oort Cloud theory has a larger number of deal-killers than the mere absence of a Nemesis.”

    Astronomers disagree, for a long list of very good reasons. The existence or not of Nemesis has no bearing on the existence of the Oort Cloud. The existence of the Oort Cloud, by the way, is a virtual certainty. Firstly, if it DOESN’T exist then the laws of physics are not at all like we think they are. Secondly we can see (so far) four objects in it. I hope to live to see probes exploring the Cloud and sending back data, perhaps 40 years from now.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      You missed the point. If Proxima Centauri is bound by gravity to Sol, and not to Alpha Centauri A, then we would not be calling it Proxima Centauri or Alpha Centauri C. We would give it a name reflecting its identity as the second member of a double-star pair, with Sol as the primary.

  19. Fergus Mason says:

    “Peer review would likely have hammered this sort of thing out.”

    Well, there’s your problem.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      The problem is that the uniformitarian “reviewers” are determined never to review any paper that threatens The Narrative.

      For a reason similar to that for which literary critics never review any self-published works. Or that traditional, print-in-advance publishers never accept for publication any work submitted by an unknown author lacking a recognized agent.

      You should never think that you can fool me about gatekeeping.

  20. Fergus Mason says:

    “If Proxima Centauri is bound by gravity to Sol, and not to Alpha Centauri A”

    It’s bound to both. However it’s part of the Alpha Centauri system.

    Everything in the Local Group is gravitationally bound. That includes us, our entire galaxy, the Andromeda galaxy and several other smaller ones.

  21. Fergus Mason says:

    “The problem is that the uniformitarian “reviewers” are determined never to review any paper that threatens The Narrative.”

    No Terry, that’s simply unfair. The reviewers are not reviewing Brown’s hypothesis because he isn’t submitting it for review. If he puts it in a paper and submits it, they’ll review it; no doubt about that.

    They won’t accept it, of course, but that isn’t because of bias; it’s because his methodology is flawed.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      How can I conclude anything other than that they refuse to consider anything that threatens The Narrative?

      Did not the un-worthies at the Climatic Research Unit under Dr. Phil Jones behave in precisely this egregious, inappropriate, and unprofessional manner?

      Since when has any investigator who supports the creation model been able to get a fair review of his work, rather than the a priori dismissal as “unscientific” or “pseudoscientific” that is the norm?

      And: how can anyone submit only ten, or even twenty, pages of a theory as comprehensive as is the Hydroplate Theory, and even hope to do it justice.

      Now I do not expect you, atheist that you are, to understand any of this. But don’t talk to me about fairness in this context. Not so long as such gatekeeping continues.

      Dr. Brown has set forth the terms under which anyone may debate his work in an open and public forum. As you know perfectly well.

  22. MatthewJ says:

    If Dr. Brown is using a nonstandard dating system I hope his algorithm is sophisticated enough to produce results in standard time format. For example, in that chart, going by your explanation, he seems to be using an autumnal equinox turn-of-the-year for two comets but a standard date for three. Unusual and complicated, or just wrong? Do you have the details?

    As far as calculating orbits backward stepwise, the issue is not one of computing power, it’s of the chaotic nature of the orbital calculations. Even tiny uncertainties in the initial measurements put into the simulation magnify themselves greatly over time. The same simulation run twice with one-minute differences in perihelion time will produce increasingly discordant results the farther back or forward the simulation runs – not because of a lack of computing power, or because of a factor like sigma(sqrtN) but because of the chaotic nature of the system. That’s why professional astronomers tie their simulations to historical observations with the introduction of ’empiric elements’ – fudge factors that make the simulation match the historical record. That’s why the Halley’s comet projections weren’t extended beyond 1403 BC, for example. They didn’t suddenly run into a wall of computational complexity – they spotted a closer-than-typical large body flyby at that point and decided, wisely, that any simulation that went past that point without additional historical observations to anchor it was pointless. They also noted in their paper that the 239 BC comet sighting was only ‘probably’ that of comet Halley, and that it is odd that there were no observations of Halley in 164 BC when their simulation suggests that it should have been obvious in the sky. But I digress.

    The take-home message is that projecting cometary orbits back this far is pointless even using the most sophisticated stepwise integration techniques. Not because the errors build up according to sigma(sqrtN) as Dr. Brown states – they do, but only in his simplistic model. In the real world they pile up unpredictably and are extraordinarily sensitive to starting conditions because these systems are chaotic. Dr. Brown’s estimation of errors relies on his arithmatic model and is entirely unphysical.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Dr. Brown knows that – about the magnified errors. That’s why he abandoned that method in favor of one dependent on the Central Limit Theorem.

  23. Fergus Mason says:

    “how can anyone submit only ten, or even twenty, pages of a theory as comprehensive as is the Hydroplate Theory, and even hope to do it justice.”

    The same way as everyone else does: write an abstract covering the main points, then follow it with a detailed paper. He won’t submit it because he knows it will never get through peer review. As he well knows science isn’t done by debates; it’s done by peer review, publication and testing. Any hypothesis that hasn’t been subjected to that is worthless. If he wants the hydroplate hypothesis to be taken seriously he has to do proper science, and that means submitting it; otherwise he’s just polishing his ego.

    “Dr. Brown has set forth the terms under which anyone may debate his work in an open and public forum. As you know perfectly well.”

    Yes, and they include allowing him to distribute my address as he sees fit. Seen the news from London today? No thanks.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      I can understand your own reasons for not wishing to engage Dr. Brown in a debate. And they have far less to do with your unfounded allegations of a confidentiality breach, and far more to do with your lack of competence to hold your own in a debate with him, and your full realization of same.

      But what I cannot understand, and what neither you nor any other anti-creationist can adequately explain, is why no person who calls himself a scientist is willing to engage Dr. Brown in such a debate. If the Grand Evolutionary Paradigm – that is to say, the trident of Uniformitarianism, Abiogenesis, and Common Descent – is so rock-solid, let any of its defenders accept his challenge!

      Unless, that is, that vaunted Grand Evolutionary Paradigm is nothing but a big bag of gas.

  24. Fergus Mason says:

    “why no person who calls himself a scientist is willing to engage Dr. Brown in such a debate.”

    Because science isn’t done by debate, and as long as Brown refuses to submit his work for peer review why should any scientist indulge his grandstanding with a debate that, from a working scientist’s point of view, is an irrelevant waste of time? If he wants to be taken seriously he needs to play by the rules, and until he does all attempts to cloud the issue with debate challenges will be seen as what they very likely are – bluster. Publish, as the saying goes, or be damned. And Brown won’t publish…

    As you’re aware I’m perfectly willing to debate Brown as soon as he agrees to the conditions I placed on his distribution of my personal data, and have informed him accordingly. I’ve been waiting for him to answer that email for 17 months.

  25. Fergus Mason says:

    “Result: 3343 BC as the year that Noah and his family disembarked from the Ark.”

    You know that we have Sumerian records from that year. written in early Cuneiform, and they don’t mention a global flood? Just checking.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      I doubt that anyone has made a serious attempt at “cross-dating” the historical records of most ancient civilizations. I’m sure you know the rueful opinions of many Egyptologists, that Egyptian chronology, for example, is a “rubber chronology,” stretchable to fit anyone’s bill. Why wouldn’t Sumerian chronology suffer from the same fault?

      In any event, this astronomical fix, once it holds, trumps any contradictory records claiming to be historical.

      And because Sumerian civilization is necessarily post-diluvian, I don’t expect them to mention the Flood event.

  26. Geno says:

    Terry wrote:
    what I cannot understand, … is why no person who calls himself a scientist is willing to engage Dr. Brown in such a debate.
    and
    Dr. Brown has set forth the terms under which anyone may debate his work in an open and public forum.

    Geno answers:
    What I can’t understand is how anyone who is serious about having a debate hasn’t been able to find one in over 32 years.

    Could it be that Dr. Brown’s terms and conditions are non-negotiable and unreasonable?

    It’s clear his written debate offer is focused much more on developing a publishable book than a scientific defense of his claims. His verbal offer places non-PhD opponents at a severe disadvantage that potential PhD opponents are not subjected to in the written debate. Finally, his desire to include a couple dozen subjects opens his opponent to being victimized by the (in)famous “Gish Gallop.” In short, no reasonably knowledgeable opponent is going to accept those terms and conditions and Brown will not budge.

    It’s not like Dr. Brown hasn’t had many offers over the years to engage him in a scientific discussion of his claims. Several have come from physics PhD’s and at least two from creation science journals. Brown could also present his model at the International Creationist Conference. Perhaps even the IGU would allow his participation at their conference….. ICR didn’t seem to have any problem participating with their R.A.T.E. research.

    To me, it looks much more like Dr. Walt Brown is avoiding any scientific defense of his model in any scientific forum ….. even the creation science journals…. than others avoiding him.

    There’s a good reason for that too. When I first became aware of the Hydroplate model, Brown was claiming an energy release of 5,000,000,000 hydrogen bombs. This was at a time when the experts were saying only 30,000 would lead to a global extinction event. Brown is now up to 1,800,000,000,000,000 hydrogen bombs. He can eliminate 99.999995% of that energy any way he wants and if only 0.000005% ends up in the atmosphere, Noah’s goose is cooked.

    (Yes, Terry, I have now read Brown’s entire book. There was nothing in the rest of it that causes me to think the Hydroplate model is any more survivable than I thought it was before.)

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Dragging out the old chestnuts will not make them roast any better than they did before.

      If you read it, you got stuck on one single thing and, determined to invalidate it on any ground, sound or unsound, you stuck to that.

      Any objective observer would have to conclude, at the most charitable, that you heard the word “B-O-M-B” and thought “Energy released as blast and heat.” When in fact we deal here with kinetic energy, refrigeration, and a whole host of principles, all acting together.

      What you really can’t seem to understand is why I don’t listen to you.

      I don’t listen to you because you are become a great crashing bore.

      What I ask myself is why I even bother to publish your comment.

      I do it to exhibit as a laboratory specimen of polemic masquerading as scientific criticism.

  27. Geno says:

    Terry wrote:
    Dragging out the old chestnuts will not make them roast any better than they did before.

    Geno answers:
    The same can be said of Dr. Brown’s claimed debate “offers.”

    Terry wrote:
    If you read it, you got stuck on one single thing and, determined to invalidate it on any ground, sound or unsound, you stuck to that.

    Geno answers:
    If it’s so easy to refute my claims, do so. I have a couple physics PhD’s who have checked over my work. The only correction they offered was to add a “9” to my 99.99….5 % … I had slipped a decimal. They are simply not willing to expend any significant time, let alone 4 exchanges of 400 pages each, to refute claims that can be dealt with in 15 minutes with not much more than a few “back of the envelope” calculations.

    Terry writes:
    Any objective observer would have to conclude, at the most charitable, that you heard the word “B-O-M-B” and thought “Energy released as blast and heat.”

    Geno answers:
    No. I looked up how many joules of energy there are in a megaton. I’m fully aware we convert energy from “blast and heat” to kinetic energy of motion all the time. We call them “heat engines” and we also convert kinetic energy back to heat. We call one device that does that “brakes.” All of us are familiar with the processes as each of us (probably) has a car that does exactly that.

    Terry wrote:
    When in fact we deal here with kinetic energy, refrigeration, and a whole host of principles, all acting together.

    Geno answers:
    I’ll be delighted to discuss the refrigeration aspect too. There’s a reason we don’t use supercritical (700+F) water to cool things.

    Terry wrote:
    What you really can’t seem to understand is why I don’t listen to you.

    Geno answers:
    No, I really do understand. Dr. Brown’s fan base is devoted to him and believes he’s the greatest scientist who ever lived. They think he’s a better nuclear physicist than nuclear physicists; and a better astronomer than astronomers; and a better geologist than geologists … among other things. They (uncritically) accept everything he says.

    Brown admits his model now involves so much energy, it can melt the planet. He has convinced his followers, including you, that he can deal with all this energy and not only avoid heating the atmosphere, but make things cold enough that it will actually freeze mammoths. Maybe that will happen on Planet Brown or Planet Hurlbut, but not on Planet Earth.

    Terry wrote:
    I don’t listen to you because you are become a great crashing bore.

    Geno answers:
    I’m far from the only critic of Brown around and I’m not nearly the most qualified. Dr. Brown whines and complains he can’t find a debate when there are a number of them just waiting to happen. The only problem with things like the International Creation Conference and creationist journals …. as well as all other scientific forums …. is that Dr. Walter T. Brown is not allowed to dictate the terms and conditions of the discussion.

    Terry wrote:
    What I ask myself is why I even bother to publish your comment.

    Geno answers:
    Because it would be boring if the blog were nothing more than a bunch of “me too” posts?

    Terry wrote:
    I do it to exhibit as a laboratory specimen of polemic masquerading as scientific criticism.

    Geno:
    Tell ya what…. why don’t you show the errors of my “polemic” and show why it isn’t a scientific criticism. I said before, if my claims are so easy to deal with both Dr. Brown and you have spent far more time and effort avoiding a direct evaluation of them than you would had you simply addressed them up-front.

    Then again, that seems to Dr. Brown’s style…. complain about being unable to find a scientific discussion of his claims while refusing all offers to engage in one.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Just one reply: I already have explained, at length, why the Hydroplate Theory makes sense.

      And more to the point: the Hydroplate Theory predicts a common launch date for all comets, the best proxy for which is a coincident perihelion for the first five clock-like comets in the catalog. And that’s exactly what we found. I defy you and, even further to the point, any astronomer to explain that away as coincidence.

  28. Geno says:

    Terry wrote:
    And more to the point: the Hydroplate Theory predicts a common launch date for all comets, the best proxy for which is a coincident perihelion for the first five clock-like comets in the catalog. And that’s exactly what we found. I defy you and, even further to the point, any astronomer to explain that away as coincidence.

    Geno answers:
    Even more to the point. I defy you and Dr. Brown to present these findings to any scientific forum for evaluation and review by the scientific community. Creation science journals and the International Creationist Conference would be ideal forums as the global flood itself is not in dispute among them.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      When said “scientific community” discards their inherent bias, that they call “methodological naturalism,” against any, repeat any, finding that threatens The Narrative, we’ll consider it.

  29. Geno says:

    Terry wrote:
    When said “scientific community” discards their inherent bias, that they call “methodological naturalism,” against any, repeat any, finding that threatens The Narrative, we’ll consider it.

    Geno answers:
    Should I consider that an admission that the creation science forums I mentioned aren’t scientific at all?

    Or, is it an admission that the evidence you have produced isn’t scientific?

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      No. You may consider that a declaration of war against the “methodological naturalistic” standard, which represents a priori prejudice, not science.

  30. Fergus Mason says:

    “You may consider that a declaration of war against the “methodological naturalistic” standard, which represents a priori prejudice, not science.”

    How can someone do science if they DON’T adhere to methodological naturalism? Inserting a black box labelled “Here a miracle happened” doesn’t exactly make it easy for your peers to check and replicate your work, does it?

    Methodological naturalism is an essential component of the scientific method. Without it people would be free to just, oh, make stuff up and self-publish it without bothering to submit it for peer review. And that DEFINITELY isn’t science.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Then you admit that as far as you’re concerned, one cannot do science if he admits even the bare possibility of God.

      For methodological naturalism says: Deny God, and do not allow even the appearance of Same.

      Therefore whenever anyone offers absolutely anything that says, “An event occurred that conforms to a certain purported Historical Record,” the “scientific community” is to reject that out-of-hand.

      That is what methodological naturalism is all about.

  31. Fergus Mason says:

    “Then you admit that as far as you’re concerned, one cannot do science if he admits even the bare possibility of God.”

    Not at all. In fact many working scientists are also devout christians.

    “For methodological naturalism says: Deny God, and do not allow even the appearance of Same.”

    No, it doesn’t. Methodological naturalism says do not add entities that are not subject to experimental verification. If your work cannot be replicated or explained in terms of verifiable knowledge you are not doing science.

    “Therefore whenever anyone offers absolutely anything that says, “An event occurred that conforms to a certain purported Historical Record,” the “scientific community” is to reject that out-of-hand.”

    Yes, because science has nothing to do with historical records. I can show you historical records of vampirism. Does that mean it’s scientifically justifiable to say that the dead rise from their graves and walk the Earth? No, of course not. Show me a plausible mechanism for vampirism (or any other form of post-mortem reanimation) and I’ll consider it. A mere historical record, however? Not interested.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Well, then explain this: can you “experimentally verify” the Big Bang? Can you “experimentally verify” the stardust theory of the origin of radioactivity?

      I suggest that the conventional scientific community make up its collective mind which “methodologically natural” explanations they will demand, and which they will not.

  32. Fergus Mason says:

    “Well, then explain this: can you “experimentally verify” the Big Bang?”

    Yes. Within the limits of what we currently understand, of course, we can look at the universe and see if it matches Professor Lemaitre’s theory. To a remarkable extent, far too closely to be the result of coincidence, it does. For example when the cosmic microwave background was first postulated it was predicted that it would have a temperature of about 3K. When Wilson and Penzias found it and checked its temperature it was, of course, about 3K. That sort of confirmed prediction is very persuasive verification. Does that prove the Big Bang? Of course not. However even if a different explanation for the origin of the universe turns ut to be correct I can confidently tell you this; the universe expanded from an almost infinitely dense point 13.56 billion years ago, because that is not in any doubt.

    “Can you “experimentally verify” the stardust theory of the origin of radioactivity?”

    No, because I have no idea what it is. Do you mean the theory that heavy elements (which in this case means everything with an atomic number between 3 and 37) originated in a stellar core? If so then yes, we can; we KNOW that fusion occurs inside stars, but as far as we’ve observed (that current knowledge thing again – all science is tentative) the conditions required to make heavy elements on any scale don’t exist anywhere else in the universe. Can we verify that everything with n â>36 is formed in supernovae? Well, we can see it happen in supernovae and we’ve never seen it happen (or the necessary conditions for it to) anywhere else.

    Scientists don’t just make all this stuff up to suit an agenda, Terry; they leave that to the likes of Walt Brown. They look at the EVIDENCE. As I said, suggest a plausible mechanism for any phenomenon you like and I’ll consider it. “Goddidit,” however, I find trite and unsatisfying. I’d like to think there was more to the universe than that, and happily the evidence suggests there is.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      The “stardust theory” says that we are all stardust, and that among the dust that assembled itself into the earth, the sun, the moon, and all the planets, was radioactive dust containing all the elements, including trans-lead elements that allegedly formed in the cores of supernovas, scattered from their explosions, then accreted to form the solar system, and the primordial ylem from which we came.

      This is a prize example of some “stuff” that scientists did indeed make up to suit the Grand Evolutionary Paradigm.

      By your own admission, you never read the Hydroplate Theory in its entirety. You, in fact, definitely refuse.

      So don’t bring me your critique of it! For until you do read it cover to cover,, I will reject it as uninformed.

  33. Fergus Mason says:

    “The “stardust theory” says that we are all stardust, and that among the dust that assembled itself into the earth, the sun, the moon, and all the planets, was radioactive dust containing all the elements”

    Uh what? Who told you that BS?

    “This is a prize example of some “stuff” that scientists did indeed make up to suit the Grand Evolutionary Paradigm.”

    No it isn’t. Firstly it’s not science; it’s bollocks. Secondly it has nothing to do with evolution.

    “By your own admission, you never read the Hydroplate Theory in its entirety.”

    I read enough of it. I admit that I couldn’t see any point in reading past the energy release Brown posulates. It would have melted the planet. In fact it would probably have vapourised it. I could do the maths but it would be a waste of time. I know it would have melted the entire crust though, because I’ve done that calculation before and Brown is talking about three orders of magnitude more energy. His “theory” is absurd and, as we both know, THAT is why he won’t expose it to peer review.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Then you never heard of the nebula theory? Or about trans-ferric and even trans-lead elements forming in the cores of supernovae at the moment of their explosions? And the dust from said explosions accreting into a disk and forming the sun, the earth, and all the other planets? (Leaving two planets with retrograde spins – but oh, yeah. Giant, Mars-sized asteroids are supposed to have hit each planet to explain its moon(s) or other weird features.)

      That is the percept that I have to work with. And you just admitted that it makes no sense at all.

      Such is the competition that the hydroplate theory has, out there in the “methodologically natural,” Godless world that you insist the rest of us work in.

      Now your statement is the prize example of how “peer review” pretends to work. You get to one particular number, and you won’t get past it. That’s like a lawyer cross-examining a witness and thinking he has scored a point. Now in a real courtroom, the other lawyer, on re-examination, gets to elucidate the point that the cross-ex lawyer missed. But in what passes for peer review these days, the cross-ex man’s point stands unchallenged, and this by order of the moderator. (I won’t say “judge,” because there is more to “critical thinking” than “criticism,” and that is a point that too many peer review board chairmen miss.)

      Well, you might as well know right now: the Creation Science Hall of Fame is going to do something about this.

      We’re going to form a peer-review board of our own.

  34. Fergus Mason says:

    “And the dust from said explosions accreting into a disk and forming the sun, the earth, and all the other planets?”

    Ah, yes, that’s pretty much an established fact. As for the rest of it, which is what confused me, somebody has been telling you nonsense. Supernovae don’t have “cores.” Stars do, but supernovae don’t. Where most heavy elements form is in planetary nebulae, when subsequent shock waves hit them.

    I don’t know why you think “retrograde spins” matter; they don’t, at all. Conservation of angular momentum concerns which direction planets ORBIT, not which way they spin.

    “You get to one particular number, and you won’t get past it.”

    That’s because it makes everything else irrelevant. The hydroplate “theory” can be disregarded because of the postulated energy release. If I wrote a book about the historicity of the bible and in chapter 1 stated that it was forged by the Freemasons, would you bother reading any further or would it be obvious that I was talking nonsense? Well, that’s the effect of that one number on Brown’s “theory.” It drops it dead in its tracks.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      The Nebula Theory is anything but an established fact. The angular-momentum problem alone is an intractable deal-killer. Remember: eddies in the disk must spin in the same orientation as the overall disk spins. More to the point, the sun hasn’t nearly enough angular momentum to account for what that massive disk must have had.

      The new Peer Review Board of the Creation Science Hall of Fame, once it forms, will consider the energy-release problem. Probably to make short work of it, but I will remember to have them address it. When, as per the Rules of the Board, we read all the book, not “just up to that point.”

  35. Fergus Mason says:

    “More to the point, the sun hasn’t nearly enough angular momentum to account for what that massive disk must have had.”

    That rather depends on how dense the disk was, doesn’t it? The answer is immediately obvious to anyone who looks at the matter density of the solar system, which is in fact extremely low.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      The mathematics still do not add up. Read for yourself. And by the way: the angular-momentum problem is not the only one, though it is the strongest deal-killer.

  36. Fergus Mason says:

    “And by the way: the angular-momentum problem is not the only one, though it is the strongest deal-killer.”

    No, it’s a complete non-issue. People with actual qualifications in astronomy have looked at it closely for quite a long time. The solar system’s angular momentum is not a problem. This is why people get so frustrated with creationists; it’s because they refuse to move on from questions that were answered decades ago. You are arguing from a poor understanding of science as it was in the early 1950s. This is why you are still creationists.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      And who are those people?

      The reason we “refuse to move on from questions that were answered decades ago” is that the answers that the uniformitarians gave, were lies.

  37. Geno says:

    Terry wrote:
    The new Peer Review Board of the Creation Science Hall of Fame, once it forms, will consider the energy-release problem. Probably to make short work of it, but I will remember to have them address it. When, as per the Rules of the Board, we read all the book, not “just up to that point.”

    Geno answers:
    Yeah. I saw you were to be “Secretary” of the board. So, let me see if I have this right….

    After dozens of years spent refusing to submit his work to any scientific forum, even creationist journals that have invited him and conferences such as the ICC Brown will now submit his work for scientific review to the CSHF…. which has already inducted him into their Hall of Fame. At CSHF, a hand-picked review board selected and led by an avid Brown supporter will then perform a scientific review of his work.

    Isn’t that just a little bit transparent?

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Transparent. That’s exactly what our Board will be.

      In sharp, never-to-be-admitted-by-you contrast, most conventional peer-review boards are opaque.

      They deliberate like black-box star chambers, refusing to disclose the identities of their membership or the criteria they use, refusing even to give the author a hearing if he wants it, and in sum, refusing any of the protections that a degree candidate normally expects, and refusing any semblance of the transparency that conventional science pretends to have. And you think that is a good thing?

      If you think you can out-junkyard-dog me, think again.

  38. Geno says:

    Terry wrote:
    In sharp, never-to-be-admitted-by-you contrast, most conventional peer-review boards are opaque…… And you think that is a good thing?

    Pi:
    Yes, Terry. I think it is a good thing that neither the reviewers know who made the submission nor the one making the submission knows the reviewers. It’s called “blind” testing and helps minimize personal matters, favoritism and bias.

    However, having one’s work “reviewed” by an organization that has already admitted the author to its “Hall of Fame” by a committee that has been selected and led by a director of that organization who is already on record as a devoted admirer of the author hardly speaks to any kind of impartiality.

    Then again, that is pretty much standard creationist practice. Note your earlier complaint that: “You may consider that a declaration of war against the “methodological naturalistic” standard, which represents a priori prejudice, not science.” In that regard, it is worth note that every creation science ministry I’m aware of has a statement that evidence not in keeping with their literal interpretation of Genesis is “invalid by definition” and they make a formal statement to that effect by job seekers a condition of employment. There is no similar statement of faith required by ANY mainstream scientific organization. It’s pretty clear to me which side approaches the issue with an “apriori prejudice” …. and it is not the evolution side.

    That said, notice, I never suggested Dr. Brown or you submit your work to the mainstream scientific community for review. In fact, I have repeatedly suggesAted those creation science ministries that will not have any issue at all with a global flood.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      The only thing anyone is blind to, are the motives of either the reviewers or the appointing authority.

      Now here is one thing you deliberately missed: the chief proponents of all three of the competing theories that our Board now proposes to review, are all inductees of the Hall of Fame. (You’ll see that one of them objected to his induction, but that’s really neither here nor there.) Of course, I don’t expect you to understand, nor care, about that. I mention that only to clarify things for anyone else reading this dialog. But if you’re looking for bias, you won’t find it on that account.

      Furthermore, you, as usual, defend the Statement of Anti-faith that you would require of all conventional science. “Methodological naturalism” says, “Always assume that something just happened by itself, no matter how unlikely it may be. Even if the evidence suggests intervention, don’t even go there. For that way lies superstition, blue-nosed tyranny, et cetera ad nauseam.” Which is why conventional origins theories violate wholesale the Law of Parsimony and even the Law of Averages.

  39. Geno says:

    Terry wrote:
    Now here is one thing you deliberately missed: the chief proponents of all three of the competing theories that our Board now proposes to review, are all inductees of the Hall of Fame.
    #####

    Geno answers:
    An oversight, not “deliberate.” Thanks for the correction. That does not invalidate any of the other issues I’ve pointed out.

    Of course all of the other models have been presented to the scientific community for analysis and review. Only the Hydroplate model has never been presented to any scientific forum.
    ######

    Terry wrote:
    Furthermore, you, as usual, defend the Statement of Anti-faith that you would require of all conventional science.
    #####

    Geno answers:
    I do not require any “Statement of Anti-faith” that’s simply absurd. There are many men of science who have faith. That is not the issue. You had complained about the “inherent bias” of mainstream science. Every creation science ministry I can think of has an openly declared statement of bias that the Bible must be true. No mainstream science organization has any position that the Bible must be true or false.

    Scientists are supposed to at least attempt approaching the evidence in an objective fashion. Considering the statement of faith is a condition of employment at creationist ministries it is obvious they cannot claim objectivity.
    #####

    Terry wrote:
    “Methodological naturalism” says, “Always assume that something just happened by itself, no matter how unlikely it may be.
    #####

    Geno answers:
    That’s hardly how I understand “methodolgoical naturalism.” My understanding is by its very nature science is limited to natural explanations. There are no supernatural tests available to science, therefore science is unable to comment (either way) on the supernatural. In other words, if confronted with a miracle, the correct scientific answer is “Wedonno” not “Goddidit.”

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      “Methodological naturalism” is a statement of anti-faith. And any man of science who pretends to have faith, yet follows that statement, declares himself ashamed of his faith.

      And “methodological naturalism” refuses even to consider any model that happens to comport, in any manner whatever, to the Biblical narrative of any historical event before the birth of Abraham. And it has problems even with more “modern” events.

      Of course, I don’t give a tinker’s dam how you “understand methodological naturalism.” I gained my understanding through long and bitter debate with some of the most prominent evolution advocates out there. Never had the misfortune of tangling with Eugenie Scott, but she wasn’t the only one, and her retirement won’t mean that the atheistic evolutionists have conceded the debate by any means. I will defend my understanding as accurate, that understanding having come directly from some of its staunchest advocates.

  40. Fergus Mason says:

    “And “methodological naturalism” refuses even to consider any model that happens to comport, in any manner whatever, to the Biblical narrative of any historical event before the birth of Abraham.”

    *sigh*

    No, Terry, it doesn’t. Methodological naturalism simply disregards anything that can’t be explained using the laws of nature as we currently understand them. It has no religious implications whatsoever; it’s just a specific way of asking questions, and is part of the scientific method.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Yes, Fergus, it does. In its application, it always has a bias toward uniformitarianism, abiogenesis, and common descent.

      Methodological naturalism insists that its practitioners keep striving, until the Second Coming of Christ, to explain, and re-create, the primordial ylem out of which the first cell emerged. Never mind that no such soup exists, existed, or could ever have existed.

      Methodological naturalism justifies (or so its practitioners think) wholesale violations of Occam’s Razor and the Law of Averages. Processes that are as likely to happen as is one individual to win a half-milliard-pound Irish Sweepstakes prize every day of his life, are accepted as the only possible explanation, when everyone with any intellectual honesty whatsoever must conclude that a miracle must have occurred.

  41. Fergus Mason says:

    It’s no wonder you reject so much of science when your understanding of how it works is so flawed.

    Google is your friend here.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Then you do not and cannot contradict my interpretation of methodological naturalism, as I have heard it defended and asserted.

  42. Fergus Mason says:

    “Then you do not and cannot contradict my interpretation of methodological naturalism”

    Of course I can, and I already have – many times.

    Methodological naturalism is the principle that all hypotheses should be based on the laws of nature as we currently understand them. It contains NO statements about faith or anything else. It’s just a way of ensuring that experiments remain replicable.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      The laws of nature as we currently understand them. And does it then assume that nothing can ever shake our understanding of the laws of nature?

      And what happens if someone develops a finding of an event that occurred in complete violation of those laws of nature?

      Take care. By the rule you just named, no one could ever have accepted Albert Einstein’s theory of either special or general relativity. And why not? Because that theory changed the laws of nature.

      Or how if the laws of nature declare that the very universe should not exist?

      I’m going to assume that your identity is as stated, and that you have not tangled with me in any other identity. So I will tell you that a certain defender of evolution, named Susan Brassfield Cogan, repeatedly defended methodological naturalism as an explicit no-God rule. She not only admitted that; she avowed that.

  43. Fergus Mason says:

    “The laws of nature as we currently understand them. And does it then assume that nothing can ever shake our understanding of the laws of nature?”

    No. That’s why I took care to add “as we currently understand them.”

    “And what happens if someone develops a finding of an event that occurred in complete violation of those laws of nature?”

    Then scientists are excited, and try to understand the new development.

    “By the rule you just named, no one could ever have accepted Albert Einstein’s theory of either special or general relativity.”

    Well not exactly. The great advantage of Einstein’s work – unlike, say, Walt Brown’s – is that it was a better match for observed reality than the theory it replaced.

    “Because that theory changed the laws of nature.”

    Not really. It just added to our understanding of them. Gravity still varies according to the inverse square law.

    “Or how if the laws of nature declare that the very universe should not exist?”

    But they don’t.

    “I’m going to assume that your identity is as stated, and that you have not tangled with me in any other identity.”

    Oh please, Terry. You know exactly who I am. We occasionally chat on Skype.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Your own definition of methodological naturalism, precludes any consideration that the laws of nature are not as supposed.

      Today you admit that sometimes you have to revise your understanding of the laws of nature.

      Furthermore, the application of methodological naturalism in origins science, by atheists like yourself, violates the laws of nature more often than I see you are willing to admit. Because those same scientists propose a formation mechanism for the solar system, and the earth, that violates more laws of physics than I can count.

      Of course you accept the angular-momentum fudge. But you probably never thought of this: how could a cloud of dust accrete in the first place? All that dust must be traveling together, beyond any gravitational influence. How does such dust get together from a bunch of supernovae? That dust should disperse, not aggregate.

      Dr. Brown, by the way, has treated the conventional theory of a molten earth. He has shown convincingly that the earth was never molten before the Flood. And: had it formed from dust accretion as conventional theorists say, it would still be molten today. And no, radioactivity can’t explain the heat, either.

      All these wild, wacky explanations come from the extreme application of methodological naturalism. I say that because that’s what the conventional theorists say they stand on.

      And we haven’t even discussed the origin of life. That alone – the emergence from primordial ylem (the components of which not a single investigator has ever elucidated) of a fully functioning first cell – shouldn’t have happened. That would be like winning two million pounds in the Irish Sweepstakes every second of your life. Yet that is the explanation that conventional theorists cram down pupils’ throats. Because those same theorists have decided, a priori, that no such Entity as God exists or existed.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      And one more thing: I have only your word that you are who you say you are. Skype? Tell me another one. I have been the target of at least two scam artists that I know of, both of whom pretend to be lissome white girls somehow living in Ghana. And wanting me to send money to prove my affection for them. Money I don’t even have, and that makes me immune to the crucial falling-for-it step. But I happen to know that young men in Ghana and Nigeria and elsewhere in southern Africa pretend to be women to scam Americans like me whom they assume to be rich.

      Bottom line: I can’t trust any, repeat any, identity that is on-line only.

  44. Geno says:

    Terry wrote (to Fergus):
    you do not and cannot contradict my interpretation of methodological naturalism

    Geno answers:
    I can challenge your definition of it. “Methodological” clearly refers to “methods.” There is no way for science to detect supernatural activity.
    ######

    Terry wrote (to Fergus):
    Your own definition of methodological naturalism, precludes any consideration that the laws of nature are not as supposed.

    Geno answers:
    WOW ! ! ! He clearly stated “as currently understood” twice. Doesn’t clearly imply a consideration that “the laws of nature are not as supposed?”
    ########

    Terry wrote:
    Today you admit that sometimes you have to revise your understanding of the laws of nature.

    Geno answers:
    Exactly ! ! ! That’s why it’s the laws of nature “as currently understood.”
    #######

    Terry wrote:
    Dr. Brown, …. has shown convincingly that the earth was never molten before the Flood. And: had it formed from dust accretion as conventional theorists say, it would still be molten today.

    Geno answers:
    Without commenting on the flood part, the Earth is still mostly molten today.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      And how do you think the Earth got molten? And you know what else? The Earth is cooling down too fast for it to stay molten for 4.5 billion years.

      Or is that another one of those “wait-and-sees” that methodological naturalism demands?

  45. MatthewJ says:

    It appears that Dr. Brown has made some significant changes to his Flood date calculation, including jettisoning three of the five comets used originally, using different orbital periods, and as a result shifting the Flood date from 3344 BC +/-0.5 yrs to 3290 BC +/- 3
    yrs. See http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ212.html

    The Creation Science Hall of Fame should probably update its own announcement to be in accord with Dr. Brown’s changed numbers. Or will you be standing by your original, independently-arrived-at date of 3343 BC?

  46. […] Creation, recently announced a new figure for his astronomical fix for the Global Flood. Like his earlier fix, he based this one on a common close-approach date for comets. But the new fix uses true […]

  47. […] Walt Brown, nearly three months ago, announced an astronomical fix for the Global Flood. When he did that, he provoked the precise sort of debate […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.