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 ...
How do you know that the entire planet has this composition?
There's as much scientific evidence for the Easter Bunny as there is for abiogenesis.
Is abiogenesis 'scientifically invalid'?
Abstract
The atmosphere of Saturn, like that of the other giant planets, is dominated by hydrogen, helium and minor species in reduced form. Its chemical composition has been studied by remote sensing spectroscopy, especially in the infrared range, from the ground and aboard the Voyager spacecraft. The measurement of abundance ratios in Saturn's troposphere shows an enrichment in C/H and D/H, in agreement with the nucleation formation model of the giant planets. As in the case of the other giant planets, Saturn's stratosphere exhibits an active methane photochemistry and an external oxygen source. The Cassini mission is expected to provide more accurate measurements of some abundance ratios, as well as a spatial and temporal monitoring of the minor atmospheric species. In the future, a space mission including one or more descent probes would be needed, to obtain a complete and precise measurement of the enrichment factor of heavy gases in Saturn, and thus to better understand the planet's formation scenario.
The capability of RNA to autocatalize is Scientific evidence in support of the hypothetical involvement of RNA in abiogenesis.
The ability of the early earth atmosphere to spontaneously form biological molecules is another piece of evidence is support of they hypothesis of abiogenesis.
What “Scientific evidence” do you have to support the ‘Easter Bunny’ hypothesis over the theory of “chicken eggs colored by children”?
I am strating to not take you seriously because of the veiled insults you toss my way, and we hold most of the same beliefs.
I don’t know that he said which one he was using at that time.
He often used the Wescott & Hort text, published in 1881, which differs from the Textus Receptus, the work of Erasmus first published in 1516, which is the basis for the KJV. They both used a variety of base manuscripts and criticism methods. The biggest criticism of Panin is that he used a variety of manuscripts to find the numerical patterns he reported. Nevertheless, the finding of patterns does not prove inerrant copying of the Inspired originals, and I have seen no scriptural reason to suppose that it would. If anything, I would think this would lead more to deception than confirmation.
Consider the simliarities of Linclon and Kennedy. So what.
http://www.school-for-champions.com/history/lincolnjfk.htm
You are starting to catch on.
So how do you know the entire planet has this composition?
Kinda thin-skinned aren't you? No 'veiled insults' are coming your way. I'm even correcting your typos for you.
"He often used the Wescott & Hort text, published in 1881, which differs from the Textus Receptus, the work of Erasmus first published in 1516, which is the basis for the KJV. They both used a variety of base manuscripts and criticism methods. The biggest criticism of Panin is that he used a variety of manuscripts to find the numerical patterns he reported."
So what's the problem with using manuscripts other than the Textus Receptus? A priori assumption there?
"Nevertheless, the finding of patterns does not prove inerrant copying of the Inspired originals, and I have seen no scriptural reason to suppose that it would. If anything, I would think this would lead more to deception than confirmation."
You're still stuck on the non-existent originals theme. It's the version of the book that fits with all of the other books that carry the pattern that is inspired.
Scientists working on abiogenesis is no different than kids coloring eggs as evidence for the Easter Bunny. Both are conspicuously absent from observation.
"The capability of RNA to autocatalize is Scientific evidence in support of the hypothetical involvement of RNA in abiogenesis."
Only to the credulous, my friend. Only to the credulous. It's just a blue easter egg. There's still no Easter Bunny.
"The ability of the early earth atmosphere to spontaneously form biological molecules is another piece of evidence is support of they hypothesis of abiogenesis."
I don't think anyone still assumes that the early atmosphere was reducing. Much less solve the right-handed vs left-handed problem, the non-existent amino acid trap, etc, etc, etc. That easter egg doesn't even exist anymore. But hey, that's science for you.
"What “Scientific evidence” do you have to support the ‘Easter Bunny’ hypothesis over the theory of “chicken eggs colored by children”?"
The fact that children can color eggs just like the Easter Bunny did is proof that there surely was (and most likely still is) an Easter Bunny.
Is that what got your knickers in a twist? Perceived insults?
My, my.
Obviously
So what's the problem with using manuscripts other than the Textus Receptus? A priori assumption there?
Not at all. I was simply springboarding from your earlier statement
You might reconsider that position. It gives 'early' copies of manuscripts more weight when they may not be accurate, just early. The NIV particularly suffers from this position.
The W&S uses the Vaticanus and the Sinaticus, which are older than the manuscripts used in the TR. The W&S is a primary basis of the Nestle-Aland, which draws from the W&S, and is the basis for the NIV. Just odd that your comments on numerology found by Panin, which was based on "older"manuscripts, in support of your original statement about the age of manuscripts and there accuracy.
I'm even correcting your typos for you.
Words fail to express my gratitude.
Again, it's not the age of the manuscript and there is no reliance on non-existent 'originals'. It's also not numerology, although many people make that error. It is the presence of the pattern in the complete set that controls.
Extending this idea, should a different version of a manuscript turn up that extends the pattern, then that version should be considered the inspired version of that book. No need to appeal to non-existent 'originals' or to use age as the determining factor.
I'm not speaking of the question of whether or not there's a God. That question is outside the realm of science. I'm speaking of those who try to understand things such as biological diversity or the age of the Solar system through such myths as the Biblical flood or the account in Genesis.
Isn't it rather silly to try separating the idea of God - a creator - from science?
Your argument is akin to someone trying to understand the origin of a cake without ever having seen an oven. And when confronted with the idea, rejects it out of hand - because in their experience, ovens don't exist.
However, If God exists then Genesis is no longer a myth, it is a possibility - an answer. You can't say I'm studying biology, not God - if God is the source of all biology(!)
You might say that you accept that there is a god - just not the one that Genesis describes (he purposely created an illusion - not fair!). But how can you place constraints on a creator (how he is allowed to create)? "Can the pot say to the potter - 'why have you made me this way?'".
The Bible states that there is enough evidence in creation that points to the existence of God - and I for one accept this statement. Logic alone dictates that you don't get get the universe we see, life on this planet - as a result of blind luck and chance.
So you say "I reject Genesis". Well, I reject blind luck and chance. But I also assert that there is enough other truth in the Bible to give meaning and purpose to what we see in this world. The problem - what causes those who "know" - to stumble or at least stop - is that faith is required.
And all I can say is if you don't have faith - ask for it.
God Bless
That and mountains of evidence. Oh, and the evidence for the contrary positions is squat.
(The Keepers Of Odd Knowledge have sure taken over this site!)
GourmetDan wins in a landslide - again! He enjoys research and learning, likes to teach, and most importantly backs-up what he is saying w/ details. He has responded to nearly every inquiry allmendream has posed with numerous links, sources, quotes and a rich and wide variety of information. I’ll be busy reading and absorbing from his links for quite awhile.
Freedom of speech is truly one of the greatest rights to be shared. Thank God for the internet and esp. FR for widening the use of this basic right.
Allmendream where are your links, sources or even just some of the assumptions present in astronomical spectroscopy?
How accurate is spectrospcopy detection of light emission and absorbtion at astronomically greater and greater distances?
Would the gases listed only comprise Saturn’s atmosphere? Not the core?
Or do we know w/o any reservations that Saturn is completely gaseous (noting eerily similarity to the ‘well-reasoned expert’ evos posting here)!?
True knowledge is conveyed with sound reasoning, logic, and details not ‘high-falutin brow-beatin’ amidst thick layers of condescension using popular opinions. The scientific method works best when all reasonable trains of thought are open for consideration. You can argue against mountains of ‘evidence’ but all the assumptions must be unearthed first.
Is the Earth truly revolving around 1 thousand mph and orbiting nearly 70k mph? With no noticeable effects? Neither here on solid ground, nor while orbiting? The astronauts described orbit it as a peaceful floating sensation - things that make you go hmmm...
A similar thread occurred over a year ago and GourmetDan more than handled the evos then too. See link below...
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/pings?more=185420106
Course none of this matters if you can so easily dismiss God (as evos so often do) - where Jonno so eloquently pointed out the obvious in post 273.
oops - here’s the link w/ GourmetDan’s arguments from a similar thread...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1800275/posts
“EVERY time in the OT, when a number is used in conjunction with the word day, it refers to a 24 hour period. On top of that, God described “Evening and morning” as being a day. Taken together, it is obvious that the intention is a 24 hour day”
Indicating an order by specifying first, second etc. in no way forces the meaning to be litteral, likewise for the use of morning and evening etc. When we talk of the dawn of the Roman Empire, we are not talking of a literal morning on one specific day. Interpreting Genesis’s use of day to indicate a stage of unknown length in the creation of the earth is perfectly valid.
“It was NEVER suggested to mean anything different, until people started trying to compromise scripture with the false assumptions of evolution.”
The theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with explaining the process of the earth’s creation. Astrophysics does that, and it does so mathematically with the hydrostatic equation which is derived from Newtonian physics and validated in several contexts.
“If one reads the sequence recorded in Genesis 1, the scripture has the sequence of events completely opposite the evolution sequence. Scripture has Earth before sun & stars, water before land, light before the sun, plants before the sun, birds before land animals.”
You did not read carefully what I said, it maps well to what an OBSERVER on the surface of the earth would see (in fast forward). The earth, as a proto-planet, would exist in it’s orbit around the proto-sun long before the sun actually reached the point of igniting. Before that point it would also start to glow a dull red from the heat generated as it collapsed (blackbody radiation), and that red light would be diffused through the solar nebula the the whole system would be clouded in. An observer on the earth at this point would see some light, but probably not be able to spot a specific source of light. Later when the sun ignited the solar winds it generated began to push the solar nebula back, first making the sun and moon visible, and later clearing things up enough that the stars would become visible.
I don’t have time to go through the whole mapping, but I do recall the sudden realization in my astrophysics course in university that what the professor was describing fit so well with the Biblical account if you assume that Moses is recounting personal observations from the surface of the earth. The professor was not trying to make that point either, as far as I knew he was a non-religious as any other prof. I believe that God showed Moses what happened and Moses recorded his observations to the best of his ability given the language of the day didn’t give him the words to be as clear and specific as a scientist today could be.
Taken in the context they could only mean literal days. Everytime in the OT when the word day is used in conjunction with a number it means a 24 hour period. To refer to "And the evening and the morning were the first day." is a completely different context than "dawn of the Roman Empire". No question it was a single light/dark cycle day. The very use of "evening and morning", joined by a conjunction, neccesitates it. In order to suggest your point of view, one has to explain why the days were numbered, and why it is called evening and morning. More importantly, in Exodus 20:8-11, the scripture reads:
"8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
Again, 7 literal days are referred to as the pattern for our 7 day week. If it were indeterminent periods of time, why were the called "days"?
You did not read carefully what I said, it maps well to what an OBSERVER on the surface of the earth would see (in fast forward). The earth, as a proto-planet, would exist in it’s orbit around the proto-sun long before the sun actually reached the point of igniting. Before that point it would also start to glow a dull red from the heat generated as it collapsed (blackbody radiation), and that red light would be diffused through the solar nebula the the whole system would be clouded in. An observer on the earth at this point would see some light, but probably not be able to spot a specific source of light. Later when the sun ignited the solar winds it generated began to push the solar nebula back, first making the sun and moon visible, and later clearing things up enough that the stars would become visible.
OK. I will concede the point that you were referring to only astronomical events, and not to those on Earth. However, the rest of the chronology does not coincide, e.g. water before dry land, plants before Sun, , earth before stars, etc.
How about those details? Where are the links, sources or quotes? Rather than a rich and wide variety of information GDan has failed to cite a mechanism or support his contention with a Biblical citation.
ping for more time..
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.