Re: Pi, maybe you'd like to offer a rebuttal on this hydroplate claim?
- As usual in young earth creationist pseudoscience tripe like this, the entire piece of rhetoric is based on one or two main arguments which are just completely bogus. (The actual word to use here has something to do with manure from a bull.) In this case, the whole article is fabricated on top of this one false assertion:
| No asteroid, if it formed in a belt between Mars and
| Jupiter, should fly so close to earth.
False assertion repeated later in the article:
| Near earth asteroids are even less likely to come from the
| main belt. What could have slowed them down and sent them
| spiraling back in to earth? The laws of orbital mechanics
| simply do not allow this.
"The laws of orbital mechanics simply do not allow this." <-- That's Terry Hurlbut telling a lie to everyone. That assertion is completely false.
But that's how young earth creationist promoters operate. Ignore science (in this case, ignore astronomy/astrophysics, and ignore the actual research published on the subject in the professional astronomy/astrophysics literature), make up a complete lie about the science that is ignored, and then fabricate a bunch of pseudoscience nonsense based on that lie and then push that out to be eaten and regurgitated by the scientifically illiterate young earth creationist sheep. That is The Young Earth Creationist Way.
Some of the NEO's (Near Earth Objects) in fact don't come from the asteroid belt at all but are comet remnants from comets from the Kuiper Belt. But the majority come from the main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.
| The known majority of them orbit the Sun in the so-called
| main asteroid belt, between the orbits of the planets Mars
| and Jupiter. However, due to gravitational perturbations
| caused by planets as well as non-gravitational
| perturbations, a continuous migration brings main-belt
| asteroids closer to Sun, thus crossing the orbits of Mars,
| Earth, Venus and Mercury.
Near Earth Asteroids - A Chronology of Milestones
Who you gonna believe? The entire scientific community of astronomers/astrophysicists who actually do scientific research on the subject and publish that research routinely in the relevant professional science literature? Or crackpot creationists who routinely lie about everything in sight and NEVER publish any scientific research at all on the stuff they love to make false assertions about to try to prop up a religious belief that has been scientifically falsified for over two hundred years?
- Todd Greene
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" wrote:
> --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
> Creation Science Hall of Fame wrote, in part:
> > Creation Science Hall of Fame has posted a
> > new item, 'Asteroid makes case for hydroplate theory'
> > The near-earth asteroid 2012 DA14 makes the case
> > for the Hydroplate Theory of the Global Flood,
> > for a simple reason.
> > No asteroid, if it formed in a belt between Mars
> > and Jupiter, should fly so close to earth.
> > Not unless it came from earth to begin with.
> > You may view the latest post at
> > http://creationsciencehalloffame.org/2013/02/08/creation-2/creation-news/asteroid-makes-case-for-hydroplate-theory/
- From: rlbaty50> Creation Science Hall of Fame has posted a
> new item, 'Asteroid makes case for hydroplate theory'
>Pi:I thought I'd wait a few days and see what would happen to this one. Terry posted this at the CSHF website as well as his blogs on Examiner.com and "Conservative News and Views."As far as I can tell..... The CSHF article has no responses. At CNAV, there have been two comments... one is a link to the CSHF article and one is a "pingback" (so far as I can tell). At Examiner.com, there have been exactly two legitimate responses... both amounted to one-liners.Given the apparent popularity of Terry's blogs and the CSHF article, I think I'll just let Terry stew in his own juices ......
- --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
PIASAN@... wrote, in part:
> Given the apparent popularity of Terry'sI noticed that in one of those quick responses Terry made that he used the magic words "Earth years"; like he's believing that the stuff out there just might have been around for billions of years but not in "Earth years".
> blogs and the CSHF article, I think I'll
> just let Terry stew in his own juices...