Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mercury’s Magnetic Field is Young!
Creation on the Web ^ | August 26, 2008 | Dr. Russell Humphreys

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: bloodbath; creation; evolution; flamefestival; intelligentdesign; russellhumphreys; scientism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-357 next last
To: Caramelgal
YES! He really is batting a thousand! (if he his batting a non existent religious ball in a theoretical evangelical zero vacuum batting cage) Yea YEC! Faith without reason wins again! .... Man didn’t walk on the Moon, it was all staged on a Hollywood movie set (Because to believe otherwise would have to mean we accept a heliocentric solar system and a whole bunch of other scientific-y sort of stuff that we don’t really understand and don’t want to think about because it’s just too hard).

OK - a lot of very nice straw men that you constructed and destroyed.

Are you ready to offer an explanation as to why he is batting 1000 regarding his predictions of magnetic field decay? Or are you suggesting that he is just presenting his "lucky guesses".

Either way it would be more helpful for you to offer an explanation of the Mercury data - rather than putting your fingers in your ears chanting nah nah nah - you can't be right your can't be right!

51 posted on 08/25/2008 9:23:33 PM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

what is this humphreys guy a doctor of? theology i suppose. the lack of critical thinking from both evolutionists and creationists horrify me. God has never been one to make things easy.. why should astrophysics be any different?


52 posted on 08/25/2008 9:30:33 PM PDT by wafflehouse (RE-ELECT NO ONE !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caramelgal
heliocentric solar system

Well, they do quote Sunrise and Sunset times on the evening news and in the newspaper, everyday! It's all relative to your point of view.

53 posted on 08/25/2008 9:31:42 PM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: wafflehouse
Adam would have been created with an apparent age of 20 years, at least. And trees, if mature, with an apparent age of 50 years.

Anti-creationsim and Creationism are completely incompatible, starting with the Genesis sequence of events.

54 posted on 08/25/2008 9:35:40 PM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

It well known that planets magnetic fields wax and wane in cycles. When the field is reduced to 0 it starts up again sometimes in the opposite direction. What these figures show is that the field for mercury reached a maximum about 6000 years ago. It does not imply that mercury was created 6000 years ago.


55 posted on 08/25/2008 9:47:01 PM PDT by webboy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
To whomever it may concern:

Being loudly stupid and Christian is not a good thing. As someone who studies both astronomy and geology AND is a Christian, I can tell you that nearly every thinking person in the world is laughing at you young Earth people.

Seriously, you are killing Christianity by holding it up as ridiculous. Please, please, please go find a clue somewhere. I have a Ph.D. in Physics and nearly a B.S. in geology. I can tell you guys with absolute certainty that this is verifiably incorrect 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

What gets passed off as “up in the air” is nothing of the sort. We know damn well how old the Earth is and there is ZERO supporting evidence for a young Earth. ZERO ZERO ZERO.

Please stop making Christians look like a bunch of ignorant ass-hats. It is so unhelpful to trying to save people in the name of Christ.

56 posted on 08/25/2008 9:47:06 PM PDT by Jeliota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grig
If the universe is only 6000 years old, God went to a LOT of trouble to make it look otherwise.

I don't know how old the universe is. And since I've never created one, I guess I can't provide a hypothesis for what it would look like when it was finished - how old it would appear when complete.

But then again, how much trouble is it to create a human being? Harder than creating an "old" universe?

How old would this Adam have appeared? I'm guessing that he wasn't created a young boy - but rather a mature man. Why not then a mature universe?

The bottom line is that if your going to allow for a creator, you have to give him complete license.

In the end the WHY (all the trouble) may have to do with the idea that the righteous will live by faith (the Bible is pretty clear that the wicked demand a sign).

57 posted on 08/25/2008 9:52:10 PM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jeliota

==Being loudly stupid and Christian is not a good thing.

Then keep your mouth shut, poser.


58 posted on 08/25/2008 10:01:32 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Jeliota

==I have a Ph.D. in Physics and nearly a B.S. in geology

Am I supposed to be impressed by your unverified credentials? And even if you were able to verify them, what of it? There are plenty of degrees on both sides of the issue on FR and beyond. So get a life, and stop trying to create the air of authority around yourself. Your arguments will stand or fall on their own merits, which so far amount to ZERO.


59 posted on 08/25/2008 10:07:46 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; Jeliota

LOL


60 posted on 08/25/2008 10:08:11 PM PDT by wafflehouse (RE-ELECT NO ONE !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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!


61 posted on 08/25/2008 10:11:19 PM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wafflehouse

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]


62 posted on 08/25/2008 10:11:23 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

well i cant imagine what ‘proof’ would satisfy such close minded hostility. i hear the Inquisition is hiring.. you might check their website


63 posted on 08/25/2008 10:12:10 PM PDT by wafflehouse (RE-ELECT NO ONE !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


64 posted on 08/25/2008 10:15:19 PM PDT by JillValentine (Being a feminist is all about being a victim. Being an armed woman is all about not being a victim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: wafflehouse

Do you make anything besides waffles?...Like, let say, an argument????


65 posted on 08/25/2008 10:17:38 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: JillValentine

I was answering a DIRECT QUESTION. If you weren’t so busy trying to be a smartass you could have avoided looking so stupid.


66 posted on 08/25/2008 10:20:29 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

he has an interesting bio.. i will pick up his book if i see it at the bookstore.


67 posted on 08/25/2008 10:22:03 PM PDT by wafflehouse (RE-ELECT NO ONE !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: wafflehouse

I’m sure he’ll be flattered.


68 posted on 08/25/2008 10:23:37 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

==Ol’ Doc Humphreys hasn’t yet figured on relativity.

Please explain.


69 posted on 08/25/2008 10:37:39 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Mediocrates
"The devout who are supposedly secure in their beliefs but spend their time trying to prove scientists wrong"

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.

70 posted on 08/25/2008 10:37:49 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

Excellent reply! Hope you don’t mind me incorporating that bit about scientists proving scientists wrong in future replies from from time to time.


71 posted on 08/25/2008 10:42:33 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: jonno
The bottom line is that if your going to allow for a creator, you have to give him complete license. In the end the WHY (all the trouble) may have to do with the idea that the righteous will live by faith (the Bible is pretty clear that the wicked demand a sign).

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.

72 posted on 08/25/2008 10:43:52 PM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e
And forget the germ theory. It’s really evil spirits that cause disease.

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?

73 posted on 08/25/2008 10:44:47 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mediocrates

“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?


74 posted on 08/25/2008 10:46:53 PM PDT by Constantine XI Palaeologus ("Vicisti, Galilaee")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SengirV
M104(Sombrero Galaxy) 28 million light years from Earth, we are seeing the light now.

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. ;)

75 posted on 08/25/2008 10:50:19 PM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ("One man's 'magic' is another man's engineering. 'Supernatural' is a null word." -- Robert Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
"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!

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.

76 posted on 08/25/2008 10:50:39 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill; GodGunsGuts

“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


77 posted on 08/25/2008 10:53:50 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Wilhelm Tell
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.

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.

78 posted on 08/25/2008 10:57:41 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
"Adam would have been created with an apparent age of 20 years, at least. And trees, if mature, with an apparent age of 50 years.

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.

79 posted on 08/25/2008 10:59:25 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

==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?


80 posted on 08/25/2008 11:07:42 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I read one of Schroeder’s books a long, long time ago. I’m going to have to search my library and see if I can dig it out again. How does Schroeder’s cosmology stack up to Humphreys IYO?


81 posted on 08/25/2008 11:12:59 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Mediocrates

Thanks for the link. That was very good.


82 posted on 08/25/2008 11:16:40 PM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

The photo the UN doesn't want you to see

83 posted on 08/25/2008 11:44:08 PM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Jeliota
"We know damn well how old the Earth is and there is ZERO supporting evidence for a young Earth. ZERO ZERO ZERO. Please stop making Christians look like a bunch of ignorant ass-hats. It is so unhelpful to trying to save people in the name of Christ.

We Know damn near NOTHING about this earth. We haven't even scratched the surface, so to speak. (that is, the crust of the earth) What we know about the earth amounts to the study of the very first outer skin-like layer of an onion. And there is PLENTY of young earth SCIENCE which easily explains (and carries more proofs) than the THEORIES used to argue old earth. We know so little of this earth, even plate tectonics, which everyone was so sure of in the 70"s, is getting its deserved share of BUNK ing.

84 posted on 08/25/2008 11:47:07 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

The bible.


85 posted on 08/25/2008 11:47:58 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Like so much else in scripture, the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory. Several allegories, actually.

The first thing Adam and Eve discovered when they ate from the forbidden tree of knowledge was that they were naked.

At first they tried to make clothes for themselves “...they realized they were naked so they sewed fig-leaves together to make themselves loin-cloths” (Gn.3:7).

But God showed them that the kind of clothes they now needed, only He had power to make. “God made clothes out of skins for the man and his wife, and they put them on.” (Gn.3:21).

The fact that they could not make their own clothes, even though trying, is a very important point in the allegory. It shows a different king of clothing than the material earth can supply. It points ultimately to the ‘wedding garment’ described by Jesus (Rev) as essential for the kingdom of heaven.

This clothing is the key to the banishment. The ‘skin’ we wear today is the same kind of skin that God make for Adam and Eve to wear — flesh and blood — the clothing of the exile. The banishment, then, was mankind’s exile into the material world where God is invisible.

Until they rebelled, these two had lived in a world that was in the same substance as God, but when they sinned, God split their world into two opposite but co-existing natures — banishing them (and us) from His sight and presence. The result was a long lived spiritual soul clothed in a short-lived body of material flesh. Their souls were made in the image of God, but their clothing reflected their material prison of chaos and exile.


86 posted on 08/25/2008 11:52:28 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
so angels dont know that they are naked?
or angels are naked and they dont care?
or what does 'realized they were naked' mean exactly in this allegory?
87 posted on 08/26/2008 12:30:00 AM PDT by wafflehouse (RE-ELECT NO ONE !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

I mean, what is your religious affiliation/church/denomination?


88 posted on 08/26/2008 12:33:05 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: metmom

great post! very interesting


89 posted on 08/26/2008 1:02:11 AM PDT by wafflehouse (RE-ELECT NO ONE !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Jeliota

welcome to FR by the way.. didnt realize you were a newcomer


90 posted on 08/26/2008 1:03:50 AM PDT by wafflehouse (RE-ELECT NO ONE !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: wafflehouse
It can and does mean many things. Where do you get angels are naked? It simply says Adam and Eve saw- or became aware rather, that they were naked. Jesus describes the clothing of angels, (as well as your new clothing in heaven) In Revalation. Flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. This is why God found it so important to discuss with us the clothing of Adam and Eve. "Even if we did once know Christ in the flesh, that is not how we know him now." (2 Cor.5:16). We have to change clothes if we want to be saved. We have to put on a garment that is eternal. This is the spiritual body that envelops us from on high at baptism, and which we can build strong to everlasting life through obedience to the Gospel. When adam and eve were first made, they had clothing which was eternal. So they weren't naked until they brought Satan's corruption into them. How did they do that? I guess you'll have to figure out what the allegory of the tree of knowlage is. Most of genisis is alegory, or parable. Even many Christians don't know that the 6 days of genisis for example, are days different in time than days from the creation of Adam and on.
The creation of Adam (5700 years ago) is not all the days of the earth. They are all the days of man on earth.

Using just one bible interpretation of the parable word, each day of creation could be 1000 years. So that alone makes the earth 12,000 years old.

But that again is a interpretation from scripture within the time of Man. Before creation of man, or even the sun, There's scripture parable that leads one to think that those 'days' were considerably longer.

Psalms 90:4. There, you'll find something quite amazing. King David says, "One thousand years in Your (God's) sight are like a day that passes, a watch in the night."

When the word "choshech" appears in Genesis 1:2, the Talmud explains that it means black fire, black energy, a kind of energy that is so powerful you can't even see it. Two verses later, in Genesis 1:4, the Talmud explains that the same word -- "choshech" -- means darkness, i.e. the absence of light. Another example is Genesis 1:5, which says, "There is evening and morning, Day One." That is the first time that a day is quantified: evening and morning. But does it mean sunset and sunrise?

Genisis then says "there was evening and morning Day One... evening and morning a second day... evening and morning a third day." Then on the fourth day, the sun is mentioned.

How do we have a concept of evening and morning for the first three days if the sun is only mentioned on Day Four? So again we can see here, that a "day" could have had several different time periods assigned to it just within Genisis itself, before Adam was created and a "day" from his perspective was a mere 24 hours. What caused these evenings and mornings before the sun was created? Was our universe present before our sun? Seems so, the light of the universe could be the earliest of light, not a strong light, but an "early morning" type of light from a brilliant newly created universe shining on the earth in it's first rotations.

Even now if you live far from any light pollution. A totaly moonless dark night still isn't quite dark, the light from the stars in the milky way faintly lights the earths dark side. (Always around this time of year (Aug) is especially bright at night where I live).

91 posted on 08/26/2008 1:20:23 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Christian. Peter’s Church.


92 posted on 08/26/2008 1:21:24 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Constantine XI Palaeologus; Nathan Zachary
I find pointless arguments amusing, but good luck with yours.
93 posted on 08/26/2008 2:12:37 AM PDT by Mediocrates (The Audacity of Hype)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

You’re welcome. Glad you liked it.


94 posted on 08/26/2008 2:14:59 AM PDT by Mediocrates (The Audacity of Hype)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
So the choices are, believe that the universe is 6000 years old or be an atheist? Most of the Church Fathers did not spend much time speculating about obscure Bible verses, trying to enforce a wooden literalism about minor details that are not important anyway. Someone did estimate that the earth might have been created in 4000 B.C., but that was not at the center of anyone's theology. The Apostles, Church Fathers and others did spend a lot of time talking and writing about Law, Grace, Jesus and tried to keep these things central. Many people from the early Church Fathers to Martin Luther and beyond warned against taking obscure verses and making a big deal out of obscure and unimportant things.

Fundamentalism stands this principle on its head while it majors in minor things and pushes minor things to the point of legalism. So you have people teaching that you have to believe the world is 6000 years old if you are to be saved, or they have Christians anxiously reading the newspaper looking for the Anti-Christ (not reading the Bible looking for Christ), worried that if they misread the signs of the times they will be "left behind."

95 posted on 08/26/2008 5:29:01 AM PDT by Wilhelm Tell (True or False? This is not a tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Hey GGG, the planets are never mentioned in the Bible, let alone the unlknown conept of magnetic fields at the time of it’s writing.

Since you are bent on beng invovled in science, have you considered being a psychology experiment?


96 posted on 08/26/2008 5:47:58 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonno
Either way it would be more helpful for you to offer an explanation of the Mercury data -

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11782

rather than putting your fingers in your ears chanting nah nah nah - you can't be right your can't be right!

That’s funny because that’s just what the YEC’s do when real science proves them wrong. “The data is fake”. “All non -YEC scientists are Atheists”. “The Devil planted those old looking fossils just to confuse us”. Chanting nah nah nah - you can't be right you can't be right while their fingers are so firmly stuck in their ears that they come out the other side.
97 posted on 08/26/2008 6:01:13 AM PDT by Caramelgal (Just a lump of organized protoplasm - braying at the stars :),)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
the l1ight of the universe could be the earliest of light,

Or Jesus John 1:9

98 posted on 08/26/2008 6:01:23 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Wilhelm Tell

99 posted on 08/26/2008 6:10:54 AM PDT by SengirV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; jimmyray; Nathan Zachary; All
Well, this thread looks like the perfect place to unveil

The All-Around Crank Index!

First, stepping up to plate, we have the esteemed creation scientist Dr. GodGunsGuts! Let's hear it for Dr. Guts!

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?

A meager +5 for citing a bogus (non-peer-reviewed) source,

Off-site rebuttals (post 16)

+5 for more unpublished nonsense

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. (post 17)

Whoa, a good one! +10 for suggesting the coordinated agenda of a 'God-denying theory', and +15 for predicting "it won't be long" before Darwin's theory is dead! (Where have I heard that before...)

Then we have a +5 for more out-of-context nonsense with the "soft dinosaur tissue" pics (post 19)

Gravitational time dilation. (post 22)

+5 more for this hilarious gem, as physicists spit out their coffee laughing. (+5 more for repeating it post 34)

That's 50 points for the esteemed Dr. Guts - but not to be outdone, the peanut gallery chimes in! Can their combined might dethrone GGG from supreme crankhood? Let's see:

Ignoring the 1 post hit-and-run shots, we have jimmyray, weighing in with this:

There a several indicator of a young earth, e.g deacaying moon orbit, decaying magnetic field of earth, increasing salinity of the oceans, etc. (post 33)

That's 3-oft-cited and misunderstood crank talking points in one sentence! But, he hasn't been corrected, and we all make mistakes, so +3 points for him.

but, in the same post, we get

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...

That's a +10 for debunking the 'pop science' analogy of the "expanding balloon theory"! We're off on a roll!

Then, in post 39, jimmyray sets up a false dichotomy by suggesting you either believe in a literal reading of Genesis or you're an atheist! +5!

On a roll, jimmray gets to this one:

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.

+10 for suggesting that are partial ignorance implies total ignorance! Way to go, jimmy! Finally, we have

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. (post 72)

+15 for suggesting 'armchair science' is as good as real science! Yahoo! Also, an honorable mention for getting the intent of the "baby with the bathwater" saying totally backwards.

And, just when you thought it was safe to surf, in comes Nobel Laureate Nathan Zachary with his commentary!

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. (post 76)

+5 for suggesting science has an 'agenda' against the church. Nice!

We Know damn near NOTHING about this earth. We haven't even scratched the surface, so to speak. (that is, the crust of the earth) What we know about the earth amounts to the study of the very first outer skin-like layer of an onion. And there is PLENTY of young earth SCIENCE which easily explains (and carries more proofs) than the THEORIES used to argue old earth. We know so little of this earth, even plate tectonics, which everyone was so sure of in the 70"s, is getting its deserved share of BUNK ing. (post 84)

Here we have (again) the suggestion that partial knowledge=no knowledge (+10) and misuse of the context of "theory" (+5), and then an incorrect statement that plate tectonics is being doubted! (+5).

The rest of NZ's commentary is Biblical, so we gloss over that to get the current scores:

GodGunsGuts +50 jimmyray +43 Nathan Zachary +25

How will it unfold? Will jimmyray make up the close margin? Will NZ make a surprise leap to the lead? Or will another upstart get in the game?

Stay tuned to find out!

(P.S. I really enjoy your posts!)

100 posted on 08/26/2008 6:28:44 AM PDT by Crankologist (See my profile page for my "All-Around Crank Index" scoring system.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-357 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson