Then how do you explain this???
Posted on 08/25/2008 7:26:38 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Once again, a NASA space probe is supporting the 6,000-year biblical age of the solar system. On 14 January 2008, the Messenger spacecraft flew by the innermost planet of the solar system, Mercury. It was the first of several close encounters before Messenger finally settles into a steady orbit around Mercury in 2011.1 As it passed, it made quick measurements of Mercury’s magnetic field and transmitted them successfully back to Earth. On 4 July 2008, the Messenger team reported the magnetic results from the first flyby.2
As I mentioned on the CMI website earlier,3,4 I have been eagerly awaiting the results, because in 1984 I made scientific predictions—based on Scripture—about the magnetic fields of a number of planets, including that of Mercury.5 Spacecraft measurements6,7 have validated three of the predictions, highlighted in red in the web version of the 1984 article. The remaining prediction was:
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
ping!
And forget the germ theory. It’s really evil spirits that cause disease.
Read Later Bump.., Cool!
Michael Medved’s belief in Bigfoot dilutes his message too.
==And forget the germ theory. It’s really evil spirits that cause disease.
Dr. Humphreys made three specific scientific predictions with respect to the magnetic fields of three planets in our solar system, and all three of them were validated by satellite data. He based these predictions on the biblical notion that our solar system is roughly 6,000 years old. Do you suppose he just got lucky?
And why would I want to forget the germ theory? Not only is it empirically true, but several creationist scientists were instrumental in its development.
==I think people like Dr Humphreys need to realize this: 1. The Earth is not flat. 2. The universe is way older than 6000 years. 3. The Earth is not the center of the universe.
We agree on #1. But can you demonstrate #2? As for #3, while it can be demonstrated that the Earth is not the center of the universe, what is your evidence that that the universe has no center?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html
Two groups amuse me:
Vegetarians who are supposedly happy with their choices but are constantly eating meat flavored this and that
and
The devout who are supposedly secure in their beliefs but spend their time trying to prove scientists wrong
“As I mentioned on the CMI website earlier,3,4 I have been eagerly awaiting the results, because in 1984 I made scientific predictions—based on Scripture—about the magnetic fields of a number of planets, including that of Mercury.5 Spacecraft measurements6,7 have validated three of the predictions,”
Oh please. When a probe is sent out like this, scientists already have a prediction on what the results will be and usually they are right on or very close. Anybody can take the scientists predictions, pick and choose and twist scripture to create some rational to predict the same thing, then sit back and pretend they proved something.
If the universe is only 6000 years old, God went to a LOT of trouble to make it look otherwise. There are stars over 100 million light years away, and we can only seem them because they were there 100 million years ago when they first emitted the light that now reaches us.
Thank you for this evidence supporting a young universe. While no human observer was present at the origin of the universe, God was. And he records it in His Word.
Evidence in the physical world around us points to special creation, the irrelevance of Evolutionism, and a young universe.
Those Ptolemaics defending the crushed evolutionary model not withstanding.
Keep up the great work!
Fine... You can find proof here on Earth that Dinosaur bones are a least way older than 6000 years.... I would say a million or more..
Humphreys, D.R., Magnetic message from Mercury, 5 February 2008. Return to text.
Humphreys D.R., Mercury’s magnetic message is not yet clear, 16 February 2008. Return to text.
Humphreys, D.R., The Creation of planetary magnetic fields, Creation Research Society Quarterly 21(3):140–149, 1984. Return to text.
Humphreys, D.R., Beyond Neptune: Voyager II supports creation, ICR Impact #203, May 1990. Return to text.
Humphreys, D.R., Mars Global Surveyor confirms creation! Creation Matters 4(3):9, June 1999. Return to text.
Humphreys, D.R., Mercury’s Messenger, Creation Matters 9(4):1,9, July/August 2004. Return to text.
Humphreys, D.R., The creation of cosmic magnetic fields, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, and Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, TX, USA, pp. 213–230, August 2008; see Figure 7 on p. 220. Hardcopy or CD copy of proceedings available from http://www.icc08.org/. Return to text.
Response to criticism of RATE’s helium diffusion dates
Helium Evidence for a Young Earthby Russel Humphreys
Helium Evidence for A Young World Overcomes Pressureby Russel Humphreys
Livingdino replies to Kevin Henkeby Phillip O’Donnell
Response to “Young Earth Creationists’ Hypocrisy on Discrimination” written by Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D. by Dr. Jerry Bergman
A Reply to Dr. Henke and Othersby David Plaisted
A Further Reply to Dr. Henke by David Plaisted
Another Reply to Dr. Henkeby David Plaisted
Reply Number 4 to Dr. Henke by David Plaisted
Response by Guy Berthault to criticism of his "Stratigraphy"
Actually, it's devout scientists falsifying Darwin's unscientific fairytale. But don't worry, the epigeneticists are busy falsifying Darwin too. It won't be long before Darwin's fairytale is taken out with the trash, and the evos are forced to come up with a new God-denying theory to take its place. It will probably come in the form of a neo-Lamarckian resurgence, led by the field of epigenetics.
LOL
Then how do you explain this???
If the universe is only 6,000 years old, then how can it contain quasars that are 28 billion light years distant from Earth?
Yes it is, otherwise my drink cup would fall over.
“2. The universe is way older than 6000 years.”
Way Older? Cool scientific lingo in a sentence wont impress anyone. Besides, did you save any receipts proving that?
“3. The Earth is not the center of the universe.”
Well you just try and find a parking space anywhere else mister! How do you know we aren't the center of the universe? Been to the edge? For all we know, 70’s fashion aside, we are the hippest beings in existence.
==If the universe is only 6,000 years old, then how can it contain quasars that are 28 billion light years distant from Earth?
Gravitational time dilation.
Thank you for your kind words, sir!
Shouldn't you be on DU cursing people who blaspheme against Al Gore and Global Warming?
And thanks for posting the links below (actually, somewhere above my response) -- I'll have to check them out later.
M104(Sombrero Galaxy) 28 million light years from Earth, we are seeing the light now.
Your turn.
And we thought all the moonbats were libs...
I’m waiting for Walt Brown to make an appearance.
when you have dating methods with built in ‘old age’ assumptions....it’s not that surprising THAT YOU GET OLD DATE RESULTS......
duh
by he way, where is the refutation of humphreys on his correct predictions?
No doubt the speed of light is an illusion or a tool of the devil or whatever. All these fanatics do is butcher science and discredit religion. I do not understand people who get fixated on one obscure idea -- the universe is 6000 years old -- the earth is at the center of the universe -- people and dinosaurs co-existed -- and they are obsessed with this one idea until it is virtually the sum of their religion. They reduce Christianity to a crude cult of numerology. In their own way they are almost as bad as the agnostic churchmen who reduce religion until it is almost nothing.
Scripture never asserts that it is. Rather, in Isaiah 40:22, we read "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" (KJV) Just because the RCC persecuted those who said otherwise, does NOT mean it is a Biblical teaching. For what it's worth, the RCC accepts evolution.
2. The universe is way older than 6000 years.
Your right, this must be accepted, for it cannot be proven. There a several indicator of a young earth, e.g deacaying moon orbit, decaying magnetic field of earth, increasing salinity of the oceans, etc.
3. The Earth is not the center of the universe.
How do you expect to prove that? If it were, and God stretched out the heavens as the scripture says, we would expect every star we observe to display a doppler shift away from us. Guess what we observe? Instead, 'scientist' imagine the ever expanding balloon theory...
Ever hear of gravitational time dilation?
You are finding, as usual, that for evolutionists, it doesn’t really matter what actual empirical evidence that confirms hypotheses says. Evolution is an axiom - it can be assumed to be true, regardless of the evidence or anything else.
http://astrobio.net/news/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2828
What's easier to believe:
1. That everything we see is just a series of chance accidents, rocks sprang to life, and evolved into the myriad of life we see today. There is no sin, no God, no moral absolutes, and no afterlife, and no design to anything we see.
2. God, who made everything in 6 days, became a man, died for the sins of the world, and raised His dead body back to life again? He is the Moral Absolute, He is Life, and He defines sin. Oh, and he will hold us accountable.
#1 is much preferred, because I get to decide right & wrong, thus, I am god. All Hail Darwininian Evolution, for it frees us from guilt!
Thanks for the ping!
Now you've done it ace, the villagers are lighting their torches, gathering their pitchforks and heading to your house. ;=)
while I agree w/ you...
KD, Your on your own, they'll never find me...
I live on a road mapquest/googlemap can't find.
each place my house 5 miles away from its actual position. 
So you agree, then, that the independent migration of Potassium and Argon out of and into samples can dramtically change the apparent age of a dated specimen?
Beautiful, isn't it? Of course, there is no evolutionary reason for us to appreciate beauty of this magnitude.
I will be happy to explain to you how it can be apparently so far away, and still be only 6000 years old, when you explain the wave-particle duality of light, how gravity works, and how you know the speed of light has been constant since the beginning, whenever you think it is.
Yessir
So you agree, then, that the independent migration of Potassium and Argon out of and into samples can dramtically change the apparent age of a dated specimen?
My comment was in relation to a new article suggesting the "dinosaur blood" was possibly a biofilm of recent age rather than fossilized soft tissue 70 million years old.
That has nothing to do with potassium and argon. But here is what appears to be a good article dealing with that subject.
By the way, a google search shows that the presumed migration of potassium and argon into and out of samples is a major creationist talking point. I found a couple of dozen creationist websites all dealing with that subject.
See if the article I linked to helps explain the details. I don't know that much about this particular subject (my specialty is radiocarbon dating, not the other methods of radiometric dating).
Ol’ Doc Humphreys hasn’t yet figured on relativity. His 6ky figure is fine, but given E=mc² and the density (m/v) of the expansion across its myriad phases, 15by is okay too.
So, you are saying the theory of relativity is valid then?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.