There you go. You have made the creation "scientists'" case for them. If any tiny datum is not precisely correct, then all of TToE and abiogenesis MUST be wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
Posted on 12/18/2013 8:42:40 AM PST by fishtank
Best Creation News of 2013: Astronomy
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
This year science has challenged the popular idea that the universe developed all by itself over billions of years. Astronomical discoveries from 2013 confirm creation—starting with the moon and reaching to the farthest galaxies.
If the moon was formed over four billion years ago by some colossal impact as secularists assert, then it should be dry as a bone. The violent impact would have melted all the minerals and thus would have ejected any water from its magma. But this year researchers reported discovering water within the minerals of some moon rocks. Not only does this refute the molten moon narrative, but it supports Scripture’s recent and watery lunar origins.1
The moon’s magnetic features also support a recent origin by design. First, the moon still has a weak magnetic field today, even though a theoretical field that fits the moon’s size can only last about 10,000 years. Also, moon rocks show that the moon had an even stronger magnetic field back when they formed. These features support the idea that God made the moon recently and that its magnetic field has been steadily decaying since creation.2
Ison was called the comet of the century, and many hoped it would put on a spectacular show with a December 2013 flyby. However, “most agree that ISON was destroyed” when it got too close to the sun’s heat, according to December NASA news.3 Professional and lay astronomers alike searched for fragments the dead comet may have left behind. Comet Ison’s short life should remind its many fans that it should never have existed if it formed billions of years ago, as an ICR article from earlier this year explained.4
A 2013 article in the journal Nature described some of Saturn’s mysteries, and ICR’s Jake Hebert explained how biblical creation solves each of them.5 For example, perhaps the planet’s rings look shiny and new because they are new. If Saturn’s moon Enceladus were older than a mere several thousand years, it could not possess the material and energy to produce its still-active geyser. And sunlight destroys methane at a steady rate on Saturn’s moon Titan, which still has plenty of the foul-smelling gas swirling in its atmosphere. This makes sense if it is just thousands of years young.
Peering into deep space, in 2013 astronomers found a connection between galaxies that are spread farther apart than a key assumption underpinning Big Bang cosmologies allows.6 The immensity of this structure should remind observers that “as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.”7 After all, God created extremely distant galaxies that look fully “mature,” complete with clumps of fully-formed stars and proportions of elements that should not exist that far away if nature-only origins were real.8
Conventional wisdom insists that natural laws somehow built planets, stars, and galaxies over billions of years, but biblical creation and these 2013 astronomy discoveries attest to their miraculous formation only thousands of years ago.
References
Thomas, B. Water in Rocks May Support Moon's Bible Origins. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org September 25, 2013, accessed December 9, 2013.
Thomas, B. The Moon's Latest Magnetic Mysteries. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org June 7, 2013, accessed December 9, 2013.
NASA Begins Search For What Is Left Of Comet ISON. NASA News. Posted on nasa.gov December 4, 2013, accessed December 9, 2013.
Thomas, B. Ison—The Comet of the Century. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org June 28, 2013, accessed December 9, 2013.
Hebert, J. Youthful Solar System Bodies Puzzle Evolutionary Scientists. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org February 13, 2013, accessed December 9, 2013.
Thomas, B. Massive Quasar Cluster Refutes Core Cosmology Principle. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org January 18, 2013, accessed December 9, 2013. Isaiah 55:9.
Thomas, B. Secrets from the Most Distant Galaxy. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org November 18, 2013, accessed December 9, 2013. Image credit: NASA/JPL/Caltech
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on December 18, 2013.
Item 67 from creation.com article cited previously:
“The moon’s former magnetic field. Rocks sampled from the moon’s crust have residual magnetism that indicates that the moon once had a magnetic field much stronger than earth’s magnetic field today.
No plausible ‘dynamo’ hypothesis could account for even a weak magnetic field, let alone a strong one that could leave such residual magnetism in a billions-of-years time-frame.
The evidence is much more consistent with a recent creation of the moon and its magnetic field and free decay of the magnetic field in the 6,000 years since then.
Humphreys, D.R., The moon’s former magnetic field—still a huge problem for evolutionists, Journal of Creation 26(1):5–6, 2012.”
>>Therefore you can not posit long ages for evolution if you can not explain these facts about the moon:
It has water,
It has a weak magnetic signature,
It has recorded recent geologic tremors,
It does recede in orbit from the Earth
If you reverse the receding orbit uniformly you’ll end up with tidal wave action that completely inundates all ground-based life forms.<<
What is the scientific basis for these assertions?
>>Recession of the moon from the earth. Tidal friction causes the moon to recede from the earth at 4 cm per year.<<
What is the scientific basis for this assertion? In what science journals is it published?
And if so, please post the link to the physics treatment of it.
>>Taking real science and spinning the results is only making the author look foolish, Aciting one’s own papers is just plain dishonest.<<
An old and tried and true liberal “argument” tactic.
And if you need proof, just do a FR search on my nickname.
(ps: Good for you for being patient enough to dig. When someone cites themselves I am done).
In Genesis, light was created for light, then and there, not to measure time. That’s the error in a scientific argument involving such.
So you agree with me. Fantastic. Have a great day.
Gosh, we basically said the same thing, and yet you still want to be argumentative. What’s up with that?
Imagining a creator and essentially using the argument that God did it to fill in our lack of knowledge and understanding is not scientific.
You then agreed by saying it’s a weakness of science to not include the Genesis narrative regarding light and time.
Magic, miracles or divine intervention as an explanation for anything is not scientific, be it a weakness or a necessary feature until such time that the concept of God can be proven scientifically.
Gosh, who’s being argumentative, lol? I just said it’s failed argumentation to try to convince Creationists using an argument involving the presence of light and the putative time required for the presence of light.
Proceedings of the Sixth Lunar Science Conference, Pergamon Press, New York pp. 3049–3062, 1975. For example, accurate tests on sample number 62235, a basalt taken by Apollo 15 astronauts near the Descartes highlands, showed it had cooled down in a 1.2 Gauss magnetic field, twice as strong as the 0.6 Gauss field at the Earth’s magnetic poles today.
So, the ejected basalt (ejected by a collision that formed a large crater) cooled down in a magnetic field that was twice as strong as the magnetic field is on Earth at the poles today. And, that basalt was ejected 3.6 billion years ago, although the AR /AR dating may be off by 170 million years, give or take a couple million. The temperature that was when ejected was something like 650C which caused the minor discrepancy (about 5%) in the dating.
What the moon's former magnetic field strength was 3 plus billion years ago has to do with the Earth's today is apparently there for informational purposes.
I am in agreement with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster that global temperatures have been rising as a result of the decline of pirates. However, with the resurgence of the Somalis, temps are going down again. Maybe I should submit a paper for peer review?
Time to play chess with my parrot.
And I said assuming an omnipotent entity to fill in gaps in knowledge is not scientific.
Same argument, different sides of the coin. I’m agreeing with you, not arguing.
Very well.
There you go. You have made the creation "scientists'" case for them. If any tiny datum is not precisely correct, then all of TToE and abiogenesis MUST be wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
It does frustrate me no end when a scientist's work is carefully mined to find tiny nuggets that can be used to promote an opposite conclusion that sounds good to those who want to believe in that other outcome. Frankly, I do not usually get involved in these discussions, I just read them for amusement. Sometimes, though, you have to see where the rabbit hole leads. And when the articles date rocks at billions of years old, it's hard to figure out how you can then conclude that this is proof that they are really only 6,000 years old.
From a mathematician viewpoint the long ages evolution answers are so far from anything reasonable so as to leave most of us truly flabbergasted at your vain godless attempts at scientific reasoning.
But as long as you two are happy with these results there isn’t much point in furthering any debate/discussion.
Boogieman is correct. An odorant is added.
Whether or not something is true is independent of your ability to grasp the concept.
>>From a mathematician viewpoint the long ages evolution answers are so far from anything reasonable so as to leave most of us truly flabbergasted at your vain godless attempts at scientific reasoning.<<
Please cite said “mathematician” viewpoint with appropriate links? Please ensure you discern between the meaningless “random chance” canard and stochastic processes.
Please provide argumentation on how science=”godlessness.” Does it mean geologists are godless? Physicists? Physicians? Where are the lines and who draws them?
>>But as long as you two are happy with these results there isn’t much point in furthering any debate/discussion.<<
The POINT is to let outsiders know many Conservatives understand science.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies
“The POINT is to let outsiders know many Conservatives understand science.”
Good luck with that.
>>“The POINT is to let outsiders know many Conservatives understand science.”
Good luck with that.<<
Sisyphean task for sure.
Our Achilles heel.
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.