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 ...
As the constant stream of phlogiston flowing from the Sun into the universal aether interacts with the crystal sphere supporting Mercury’s orbit, it creates a new magnetic field. When the field gets strong enough, it will cause the topmost giant turtle to sneeze, bucking Mercury off. Look out below!
Humphreys graduated B.S. from Duke University and was awarded his Ph.D in physics from Louisiana State
==what is this humphreys guy a doctor of?
Humphreys graduated B.S. from Duke University and was awarded his Ph.D in physics from Louisiana State University.[1] He has worked for General Electric and Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics where he received a patent and a science award.[1] From 2001-2008 he was an associate professor at The Institute for Creation Research.[1] He currently works for Creation Ministries International (USA).[1] Humphreys is a board member of both the Creation Research Society and the Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico.[2][3]
well i cant imagine what ‘proof’ would satisfy such close minded hostility. i hear the Inquisition is hiring.. you might check their website
Humphreys has a PhD in physics? Well, stop trying to create an air of authority around him. His arguments will stand or fall on their own merits, which so far amount to zero.
Do you make anything besides waffles?...Like, let say, an argument????
I was answering a DIRECT QUESTION. If you weren’t so busy trying to be a smartass you could have avoided looking so stupid.
he has an interesting bio.. i will pick up his book if i see it at the bookstore.
I’m sure he’ll be flattered.
==Ol’ Doc Humphreys hasn’t yet figured on relativity.
Please explain.
Who spends time proving "scientists" wrong? Why scientists themselves. Whenever new scientific evidence emerges, it invariably delegates the old theory(s) to the trashbin, which proves it was wrong to begin with.
Contrary to the LIE evolutionists continually regurgitate, -that the church is "against science"- the church embraces science, and always has. It is thought that since science is the pursuit of truth, that it will eventually lead to understanding God, as God is truth.
Excellent reply! Hope you don’t mind me incorporating that bit about scientists proving scientists wrong in future replies from from time to time.
Well said. God created in 6 days, and has sustained for 6000 years. We try explain the creating by what we observe in the sustaining.
I was once a believer in the evo worldview, and it granted me license alright. But when I bcame a man, and actually investigated the so-called proofs (Horse fossil series, dark moths, "lucy", et al), and found they were frauds, I threw the baby out with it's bathwater. IMHO, it takes MUCH more faith to believe we evolved from rocks than it does to believe God created it all in 6 days, 6000 years ago, as his book claims. Not to mention the faith required to believe that the beauty, diversity and order of the universe is the result of a big explosion aons ago.
Is that the best you can do?
I sure hope this isn't what you consider an example of a scientific answer to the article.
Why don't you show us where this article is wrong, instead?
“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”
Funny, I find it amusing when Darwinists, neo-darwinists, etc. flock to posts like this like moths to a flame.
You don’t find anything slightly ironic about your second amusing group?
Like all the other stars, it's painted on a black curtain, hanging about 160 miles above the flat surface of the Earth. And since you haven't personally been up there and seen the Divine Curtain Rod of Infinity, you can't prove it isn't. ;)
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!
That's a pretty simplistic view of God's creation, and a very wrong one. It's probably why you have a hard time believing.
It's a sad example of how man has "evolved" to the point where he no longer is able to understand but the simplest meaning of the words of his own language.
“If the universe is only 6,000 years old, then how can it contain quasars that are 28 billion light years distant from Earth?”
http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Age_of_the_Universe.asp
by Dr. Gerald Schroeder
I do not understand people who get fixated on one obscure idea -- the universe is 6000 years old 15 billion-- the earth is not at the center of the universe -- people and dinosaurs didn't co-exist -- and they are obsessed with this one idea until it is virtually the sum of their religion.
Evolution is the creation account of atheists, whose religion is secular humanism.
Anti-creationsim and Creationism are completely incompatible, starting with the Genesis sequence of events.
No, Adam was exactly one day old, or mere moments old when he was created. Wht you fail to see is the form he was first created in. If you would have actually read scripture, you would know Adam and Eve had the same form as angels, as Jesus himself in Heaven.
The flesh came later. So did this earth, and the sin of death it is spoiled with. "Eden" wasn't on earth as we know it.
==If you would have actually read scripture, you would know Adam and Eve had the same form as angels
==Eden” wasn’t on earth as we know it.
What religious tradition are you getting this from?
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.