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 ...
The scenario is made up gobbly-gook, but it's no surprise that you take it seriously realizing that you also swallow anything the scientific community pronounces hook, line, and sinker.
The supernatural is being swept out of the universe in the flood of new knowledge of what is natural. It will soon be as impossible for an intelligent, educated man or woman to believe in a god as it is now to believe the earth is flat, that flies can be spontaneously generated... or that death is always due to witchcraft... The god hypothesis is no longer of any pragmatic value for the interpretation or comprehension of nature, and indeed often stands in the way of better and truer interpretation. Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat. Religion without Revelation (1957) p. 58
In the evolutionary pattern of thought, there is neither need nor room for the supernatural. The earth was not created; it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. The Humanist Frame (1961) p. 18
The teaching of a 6 day creation, and a young earth, is hardly new, nor is it based on obscure passages. Genesis 1:1 contains the explanation of the orign of everything - time, space, matter, and the rest of the chapter explains waht He did in 6 literal, 24 hour days. This is repeated in Exodus 20:11, For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.. It is doubtful that Moses thought this was anything more than six 24 hour periods. Jesus, in Matthew 19:4, affirmed that God MADE Adam and Eve, they did not evolve over some period of time, "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'. The concept of original sin is explored in Romans, Acts, and I Corinthians.
So yes, it is one or the other, Creation or Evolution, for they are independent of each other, and are diametrically opposed. The middle ground compromise polutes and subverts both viewpoint, and is anathema to the educated Evolutionist, as well as the educated Christian. If you can compromise the scripture and Christianity on origins, then every theological position is open for compromise. Why would one believe in a god that required the constant life & death struggle for millions of years to produce man, who was barely different from his "ancestor"? Comproimised Christianity, and the result of that theology, is why Churches lose an overwhelming percentage of youth. They see the inconsistencies, and realize THEY can determine what in the scripture is true or not, allegory or reality. Thus, "The wages of sin is death" becomes "sin is a bad idea, but it's OK with God; don't sweat the obscure stuff."
The crux of the matter, though, is that: 1. we have brokend God's laws, and stnad under condemnation 2. Jesus came to be a sacrifice to pay for our sin 3. He rose from the dead to prove his claims true. 4. Each one must decide what to do with this Jesus, and the consequences of that decision are dramatic.
You have presented a false dichotomy. No serious person of faith that I know or have heard has suggested that science is useless - or should be ignored.
On the contrary, many (especially the early) scientists were people of faith who took their belief in an ordered universe as the datum from which their science was derived.
Don't you find it interesting that there is so much that is orderly and predictable? And yet there are some that suggest that all this order came from chaos...
There is a false dichotomy between science and religion, especially the Christian religion. Islam IS anti-science, because expecting order and predictability is heresy (”chaining allah”). Eastern culture is also anti-science, but for different reasons - ancestor worship - you can’t make your own discoveries until you perfect the copying of those that went before you.
There is, however, a dichotomy of initial assumptions, whether you believe in the Creator or in the Grand Accident. All of your interpretation of the evidence will be through this lens.
Cute story. However, it goes more like this:
Mom, I heard the preacher say that the Bible is absolutely true. Is this correct?
Mom, my teacher at school says that everything evolved from something called the primordial goo. Is that true?
How can they both be correct?
Honey, the bible is full of stories that tell us about ourselves, but you have to understand what they really mean, not what they read.
So who determines which bible stories actually happened, and which stories are made up?
Well honey, if the stories disagree with what we know from science, then they must be made up.
Mommy, was Jesus real?
Why sure, honey!
My Sunday School teacher said Jesus walked on water, healed sick people, and fed 5000 people with 1 lunchbox full of food. Did that really happen?
But my school teacher said those were tricks, or just stories
Well honey, look inside yourself, and you have to determine what is true or not.
Mommy, am I god?
Run along and play, honey, I need to catch up on Oprah...
So What? If it’s not mentioned in the Bible, that means it makes no testable predictions. GGG’s original thread is a creative excercise in nonsense.
"I know what You wrote, God, but I'm going to accept Man's wisdom over Yours."
Does that mean the Catholic Church?
Already thinking about reeducation camps? Getting a little ahead of yourself, aren't you? Usually the Darwiniacs wait until a more advanced stage of the revolution to employ such tactics.
Are you suggesting that Cranky is a retread? Perish the thought!
You forgot the other reasons to stay tuned, “How long will Cranky last on FR.” “Can you guess Cranky’s former screen name?” “Do you suppose Cranky is just a garden variety socialist, or a disciplined Communist?”
I'm not necessarily a YECer, but it'as entertaining to see the establishment constatntly rattled by them.
If God created Adam from scratch, is it logically necessary that he had no navel? The problems with the Creo/Evo arguments is that they have widely divergent presuppositions. The Evos believe only "Nature" is "real." The Creos think that Nature is a part, but not all, of "reality."
Bathwater = flawed examples of evolution
Baby = belief in evolution at all.
You apparently don't understand the meaning of the phrase. I actually wrote, and you quoted "I threw the baby out with it's bathwater."
FWIW, I have argued the silly balloon example on this very site, and as far as it being "pop science", I prefer the term "non-science", yet it is used today in schools throughout the land to teach impressionable youth that the universe came about via an explosion of nothing.
And if the universe is only 15 Billion years old, how can we see these quasars that are 28 billion light years away?
"And if the universe is only 15 Billion years old, how can we see these quasars that are 28 billion light years away?"
There are so many assumptions built into these 'long-ages' that nobody should take them seriously.
How do you prove that the speed of light has been constant over an assumed 15-28 billion years?
It is assumed.
In The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Hawking and Ellis admit that a crucial component of their cosmological model is based on an admixture of ideology, which, as Dr. Humphreys points out, is another way of saying it is not warranted by observations. Hawking and Ellis call this ideology the Copernican principle, but in reality, it couldn’t be further from what Copernicus actually believed. Copernicus did indeed posit that the earth was not the center of our solar system, but he also held that our solar system was either at or near the center of the universe. Hawking et al, on the other hand, put forward Bondis badly misnamed Copernican principle, which demotes our solar system (indeed our entire galaxy) to a position that is not specially distinguished in any way...and without a shred of evidence to back up such a momentous assumption. Thus, in the case of Big Bang cosmology, we find that Evo Big Bangers have inserted a principle that is based on their a priori faith commitments rather than empirical scientific observation. What Dr. Humphreys has done is turn the Copernican principle on its head based on biblical passages that suggest that God created the universe with a center. He then plugged this assumption into Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, and found that gravitational time dilation allows for both extremely young and extremely old galaxies that owe their existence to the exact same creation event. Stephen Hawkings et al ASSUME that the universe has no center based on the observation that the universe appears spacially homogonous in every direction. But again, this is a massive assumption, for the universe would appear the exact same way if we occupied a spot at or near its center. I will leave which model makes superior predictions for another discussion (assuming you’re still interested).
PS You can watch a preview of Dr. Humphreys video here (small screen):
You can purchase the video here:
Sorry, meant to ping you to this reply as well.
The typical evo scientist has much information but grossly lacks the wisdom to interpret it properly, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools".
You think maybe nine of ten southern Baptist kids leave the church because they don't like the music? That was the official theory.
Plugging Bible passages into Einstein’s GR theory still doesn’t explain the fact we are seeing somewhat distant galaxies(< 100 million lightyears) without deformation due to gravitational time dilation. We are seeing a perfect image with starlight from the far side of the galaxy that had to have traveled upwards of 50,000 thousand years to match with the starlight from the closer side before it entered the “magical” gravitational time dilation field between galaxies.
So in order for your and you esteemed scientists theories to hold, a couple of these things have to happen -
1) This “magical” gravitational time dilation can’t actually alter the path of light, only accelerate it. Which would be in direct opposition to the example I pointed out earlier - Einstein Crosses - http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/E/Einstein_Cross.html
2) These “magical” gravitational time dilation field must also exist in smaller scales to allow the light of far ends and close ends of galaxies to mingle into one image of the galaxy that we can see from Earth. Again, without, you know, gravitational influencing the light as we see in the TRUE example of gravity’s influence on light as shown in those pesky Einstein Crosses.
3) God created the universe with the light already 99.99999999999+% the way to Earth.
#3 is right out when it comes to a scientific explanation, as that is based on pure faith that God is intentionally tricking us by doing that and then giving us the brainpower to begin to understand the principles of the Universe around us.
So please give me examples of #1 & #2 and why gravity sometimes shows it’s effects upon light, and other times it does not. I’m sure it has something to do with light being both a wave and a particle, and only you get to pick and choose when it gets influenced on only one aspect versus the other.