Skip to comments.Mercury’s Magnetic Field is Young!
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 Mercurys 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 predictionsbased on Scriptureabout 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 ...
Give it up. The young earth battle was lost in the early 1800s.
The evidence for an old earth has only become stronger since then.
Amazingly in your world they are mutually exclusive. For the rest of us who do have the ability to use our brains, we see God’s work apparent in the universe everywhere we look. All created fashioned and “nudged” along according to God’s will.
So while you claim to have THE truth, you are really a far fringe element who makes the rest of us believers in God look bad because you can’t accept the universe, and our interpretation of it, using the amazing brains God has given us.
And for those of you who simply throw out “gravitational time dilation” for my Sombrero Galaxy example, PLEASE explain to me this - How can we possibly be seeing those somewhat distant “less than 100 million lightyears” without any distortion? If you look at the sombrero galaxy, we are not seeing all the light that left the stars at the same time, the light we see from the stars on the side further away from us is older than the light for those stars closest to us. So even if there is this “magical” medium which transports this light to us instantaneously, it still requires that the light at the far side of the galaxy had been traveling for 50-100K years(width of the visible part of the galaxy) before it caught up with the light on the closer side to give us this perfectly uniform image.
It’s almost as if you are saying that those stars/clusters/nebula that are < 6000 light years away from us are A-OK, but anything further has it’s light transported to us instantaneously. And without distortion I might add. Even though Einstein Crosses show how easily it is to become distorted with intervening material.
I’m sorry, but “gravitational time dilation” to explain all of the universe is a term thrown out there in lieu of using your brian. Because what is the gravitational force that increases the speed of light, yet does not distort the source from the end observer. I take the distance of < 100 million light years because I’m sure you will show examples of distortion from galaxies much further away with lots of intervening material. In fact, I’m sure you would have shown me examples of Einstein Crosses as an example.
Spare me. Nothing I have seen from the young Earth crowd holds muster against any kind of factual analysis.
Drive through the Pennsylvania mountains and tell me how they can be explained by young Earth nonsense. They cannot.
It all seems to boil down to this in the end: you can try to understand the universe through science or through mythology. The former certainly seems to work better than the latter...so if I’m trying to determine the age of the universe, I’ll look to the consensus opinion of physicists and astronomers rather than that of priests and shamans.
Methinks the sarcasm of the post was not self-evident...
This is so sad, but true. Many Christians are actually believing this stuff. In 20 years there will be no Christianity left if we keep selling a load of garbage.
Dad, did dinosaurs really exist?
Sure they did, son. The Bible says so. They didn't call them “dinosaurs” back then, but instead they were known as “leviathans” or “behemoths”.
But, my science teacher says dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. Is that true?
Of course not, son.
Then how old are they?
Well, let's see. The Bible tells us [from Adam and Eve's family tree] that the Universe is only a few thousand years old. So dinosaurs had to have lived within the past few thousand years. That's simple logic, son.
Oh. So that means they were on Noah's Ark?
Absolutely! The Bible says two of every animal were brought [by God] to the ark. Dinosaurs were animals. So, using your logic again son, dinosaurs had to be on the ark.
Huh. So how come scientists say they're older than that? and died way before Jesus?
Well, son, they just make that up. Dinosaur bones don't have labels on them to tell how old they are. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist saw dinosaurs die-
No I'm serious. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.
That's sad. But I thought scientists were smart?
Sure, but they don't know everything. So they have to make stuff up to fit their beliefs. While you and I, we have the facts, straight from the Bible.
I don't want to be a scientist!
Ha! That's ok, son. It's better to be right, than smart. C’mon, wanna learn how to flip burgers like your Dad?
Welcome to FR.
Lovely Christian attitude you’re displaying there.
What was that about making Christians look like something?
Fascinating, and condescending to boot. Please show me in the orthodox (OT & NT) scriptures where you derive this theolgy.
I do have a question, though. If Adam and Eve did not have flesh, and were like the angels, why did God make him out of the dust of the earth (Gen 2:6), and then tell him to proceate (Gen 1:28)?
1 Corinthians 15:44-46 reads If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.
Remember Titus 3:10-11 folks.
I’ve never bought into the 6000 year-old universe thing. For one thing, it is presumptuous of us to think one minute of our time is the same as one minute of the Creators. What passes as a day for us may be the same as a thousand years to him.
Our time is based upon the rotation of the Earth - if God created something as vast and expansive as the universe, why would his measure of time be tied to the rotation of a single tiny planet around its sun?
Your scenario probably explains why nearly nine out of ten Southern Baptist kids leave the church after high school (by their own published survey).
The only place where I disagree is with the implications that this will affect their income. College education is no longer the road to higher income. So if worldly success is your priority, ignorance of science is not a problem.
I think that the point jimmyray was trying to make was that in the conflict between science and creation, there’s a matter of interpretation.
On the day that Adam was created, he was created as an adult having the appearance of age. On that day, he was indeed one day old.
However, if a scientist came along and was asked how old Adam was, he would make his decision based on what he saw and Adam was a full grown man, so the scientist would say 20, for example.
Now the creationist would say one day, and the scientist would do exactly what the evos on this forum do; deny it. He could tell the creationist that he is wrong, go through all kinds of reasoning and contortions to prove it, no doubt mock the creationist for being such an ignorant knuckle dragger for not believing the evidence in front of his very eyes and yet who is right? The scientist or the creationist?
Science works on the observations made of the appearance of things. They have no way of determining if that conclusion is right.
Creating the universe and mankind with the appearance of age is not an exercise in deceit as so many evos would like to accuse God of doing. Rather it’s a practical matter of functionality.
I’d have to read both before I could answer.
I find Schroder’s cosmology intriguing though.
next week they burn the library of Alexandria.
I don’t get why people make an issue of Creation. God is all powerful, for heaven’s sake. If He decided to create a tree in my backyard right this second, it would be indistinguishable from a tree that grew from a nut. He is not bound by time- He could materialize it out of thin air right now, or insert a seed in just the right spot fifty years ago. The same goes for the universe. A created universe is indistiguishable from a so-called “evolved” universe. Anything else would be impinging on our free will to believe or disbelieve in God as we choose.
Quibbling over this sort of thing when omnipotence is involved is a seriously unwinnable proposition.
What was your previous screen name?
Try this link.
by Dr. Gerald Schroeder
actually human caused global warming and creationists/id people use the same “scientific” methods.
Of course it isn't! THEY are! ;-)