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 ...
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!
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?
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.
Anti-creationsim and Creationism are completely incompatible, starting with the Genesis sequence of events.
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.
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.
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).
==Being loudly stupid and Christian is not a good thing.
Then keep your mouth shut, poser.
==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.
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. He has worked for General Electric and Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics where he received a patent and a science award. From 2001-2008 he was an associate professor at The Institute for Creation Research. He currently works for Creation Ministries International (USA). Humphreys is a board member of both the Creation Research Society and the Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico.
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 hasnt yet figured on relativity.
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
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?”
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?
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?
Thanks for the link. That was very good.
The photo the UN doesn't want you to see
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.
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.
I mean, what is your religious affiliation/church/denomination?
great post! very interesting
welcome to FR by the way.. didnt realize you were a newcomer
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).
Christian. Peter’s Church.
You’re welcome. Glad you liked it.
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."
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?
Or Jesus John 1:9
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!)