Oh, and also, being within an order of magnitude would be only a few hundred km off, not a few thousand... And certainly not with a ~43.5% m.o.e.
Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?
- Thread starter Vulcan Logician
- Start date
iouae
Well-known member
Do you agree that everything in the cosmos was made by Jesus? Here is a verse to help you answer that?
Jhn 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Do you agree that Jesus made carnivores?
Do you have a problem with this?
Jose Fly
New member
Er....um.....so apparently you think there was one point in time (post-Darwin even) where someone "named the geologic column", rather than it just being the cumulative work of geologists identifying and naming various strata over the years.
Like I said, this is why no one should ever get their info on science from creationists.
Jose Fly
New member
Did you even look at the strata in the Grand Canyon? If so, didn't you notice anything?
iouae
Well-known member
As the magma bubbles out at the mid oceanic ridge, it hardens and traps earth's current magnetic field direction in its hardened rock. Thus rock formed today shows a magnetic field with the north magnetic pole where it is today.
But the record in the rocks shows a reversal of polarity hundreds of times in the past as rocks spread from the mid-oceanic ridge.
This would have to mean that the earths poles were oscillating every few days during the flood if all these pole reversals occurred during the Noah flood.
Or, over millions of years, earth reversed its poles, and this was recorded in the rocks as the continents moved slowly apart.
Which sounds more logical?
Jose Fly
New member
It's not even a hypothesis. It's a religious belief.
Jose Fly
New member
How much energy did that require?
iouae
Well-known member
I want to tell you why the site you sent me to does not help because it does not explain the CHANGING polarity as evidenced by the FACTS on the ground on either sides of the mid oceanic ridges.
The site you sent me to explained earth's strong magnetic field as follows...
As earths rock cools, it traps the magnetic direction and turns the solidifying rock into a magnet which increasingly adds to the strength of earth's overall magnetic field.
Great theory, but utterly wrong for this one simple FACT...
Earth's magnetic field is constantly reversing, so hardening rock first is a magnet pointing to Arctic, then when the field reverses, is a magnet pointing to Antarctic etc. etc.
This reversal of the field in the rocks CANCELS one another out. Thus hardening magnetite rock would overall be magnetically neutral and would NOT lead to an increasing magnetic field of the earth.
I think the article's author was homeschooled since he/she does not take into account the changing polarity of earths magnetic field over time.
Still trying to make digs at homeschoolers as if public education is better... It's not.
You need to stop.
https://www.nheri.org/research-facts-on-homeschooling/
And the author of that site has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a B.S. from West Point. Hardly as uneducated as you're attempting to make him seem by saying he must have been homeschooled.
iouae
Well-known member
Well then you explain to me how a reversing magnetic field does not destroy his theory. The rocks do not lie. Its a FACT written in the rocks that the field continually reverses.
6days
New member
Of course.iouae said:
You didn't like the goal posts? (The gap theory is heretical and destroys the purpose of Christ's physical death)
Kind of a silly question don't you think? It's like asking if God made Dalmatian dogs?iouae said:
If you understood God's Word, and a little science, you would know organisms change over time through mutations and adaptations but they always produce after their same kind. You would also know that God have every animal plants for their food. "And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." Gen. 1:30
Lon
Well-known member
I OFTEN find those who aren't up to scratch get all worked up over this. It isn't 'my' pride. I know, rather, what my prowess is. I think acing a class gives me some certain prowess. Sorry if you find that it leaves you below par or what not. Humility is NOT putting yourself down. That's false humility. Learn proper definitions while you are also looking to God for proper creation instruction? Just a thought, regardless what it does or does not do for your pride.
Lon
Well-known member
Yes. Logic is simply figuring out what is true AND it was true before we ever got here. 2+2 equaled four before we ever got here.
:nono: Shortsighted. There is no 'reason' for us to have 'evolved.' There is NO mechanism for it. None, if you were correct and there is no god. AT LEAST some of the previous atheists understood this and speculated over alien plantings etc. They KNEW nothing + nothing always equals nothing.
Your version perhaps. Not mine. Sorry about that. Try to find out why your and mine are completely different. Mine is Biblical, btw.
Yep, Christians do die today for their beliefs. Because they are mean? :nono: Because they reject hatred and hateful people can't abide it more likely. As to violence? I don't believe it. We didn't have mass shootings. We didn't have kids dying while cowards hide behind bullets shooting up their unprotected classmates like fish in a barrel. It DIDN'T exist. I don't care about Pinker's nonsense statistics. They just do not add up. It is pure hype and spin. Statistics CAN lie if used by the wrong people.
Incorrect. You weren't there. Double blinds cause 'doubt' and James says doubt kills prayer. You CAN'T do a decent double-blind without being a well-read Christian. For you? No good because you aren't a Christian but it at least protects us from absurd tests for God which He tells us not to do. No strong well-read Christian is going to submit to a double-blind. Why? Wrong reason. We don't double-blind a mother's love for her child without becoming clinical and sanitizing it. It just isn't possible (I know the arguments 'for' and don't buy them, clearly Dawkins, Hitchens, and Hawking with their failed marriages and troubled children aren't capable).
Good! It means no deceptions!
You are playing purposefully obtuse and stupid. Do you have a picture of wind for me to look at? Are you (ineptly) going to tell me there is no such thing as wind? You atheists seem to spout this absurdity ad nauseum. It is just dumb, Stuart. Dumb. Leave it on the floor where it belongs and don't pick it up again. YOU know how unworthy it is. It isn't intelligent, honest, or taking any kind of high-ground for reasonable, intelligent, or gracious conversation. It is why you folks get banned at times. We all see this as "insincere." If I need to explain further or this inconceivably finds you unaware or clueless as if you think this is an intelligent request, let me know. I have a hard time believing this catches you confused or unaware, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt if it does catch you in that awkward position.
See, again, this is why I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you can show me a picture of the wind (not what it does) I'll try by turn to give you a picture of God. If you agree we can neither have a picture 'air' (moving or otherwise) nor God, but that they both can exist. Great. IOW, you would at that point acquiesce that even in this material plane (our physical observance and existence) some things that exist actually are invisible and it isn't reasonable to request a portrait of them (wind/air being a good example). Simply saying "if I can't see it, it doesn't exist" isn't a reasonable logic. it is in fact illogical. My expectation is that you know this. If not, forgive some incredulity on my part and I'll exercise patience.
Incorrect. There is EVERY good reason to suspect. ONLY those opposed to His personality would 'doubt' it. It is frankly a cop-out.
Correct. It is not your business to deny. That isn't good conversation or investigation. I have VERY good reason for believing. How to make such clear? I didn't double blind, but I did see several instant healings in my lifetime. I have seen incredible, miraculous, and incredibly specific answers to prayer, all unshared with anybody else, all impossible for explanation other than somebody is hearing my prayer and answering incredibly specifically and impossibly. As I've often said, either God exists or I'm magic. You SHOULD find it easier to believe God exists than to believe I'm some kind of Harry Potter. It leaves little squirming room for you, honestly. I find your objection otherwise " I do not see you having a good reason for believing the way you do..." just isn't reasonable and it doesn't fit the data at all. You at the VERY least should be agnostic, not against such a notion. SOMETHING has clearly happened that doesn't leave room for such a statement. It isn't a tenable response. Rather "I don't or can't believe you" could be appropriate etc. but NOT " I do not see you having a good reason for believing the way you do..."
I don't believe you are being objective. This isn't a 'thing' that you can scientifically objectify. To me it is akin to Hawking saying that "philosophy is dead." He couldn't have been more wrong with just a statement. You and I exercise philosophy in every dialogue we carry out. If even I gave him the caveat "formal philosophy education is dead" he'd still be wrong. If we forget our past we are sure to repeat the problematics of that past. Ignoring nitrogen levels while scuba diving can kill you. Despite your or my ignorance of the fact. If you were to believe 'nitrogen levels' are "so obviously fiction" I'd do my best to convince you that you are quite mistaken, not because I'm an egotist, but because I'm a humanitarian. It is the right thing to do. While you are here on TOL, I must try, even if my efforts are futile in the attempt. Anything less would be unconscionable for me personally. I do care. -Lon
Lon
Well-known member
:think: Some scientist said some deep water animals can live near vents without 'oxygen.' I wonder if he knows what he just said. :think:
Jose Fly
New member
Lon
Well-known member
I wonder if you know what 'water' is made of... :think: I hate to say my estimation of your academic prowess falls every time I talk to you, but anaerobes ARE dependent upon oxygen. I wonder if you know the difference between elements and compounds :think: You just aren't this bright, Jose. I'm smarter than you. I just am. Sorry about that Sparky.
I agree you have a simple analysis of a genuinely complex problem.
There have been cases of two witnesses giving the same testimony of an event they recall vividly, only to have that contradicted by the video taken of the event. It is a problem in justice systems that judges and juries put so much weight on eyewitness evidence, not realising how weak it can be.
What if this is a deceiving god, as suggested in 1 Kings, 2 Kings, Jeremiah, Isaiah and 2 Thessalonians?
Sorry, but what a load of theological drivel is what comes to my mind.
Will you tell that to the creationists here? You might be more convincing to them.
Outwards, a bit slower than the average rate of human fingernail growth, averaging 2.5 cm per year in the specific case of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.
Have you read the Holy Wikipedia verses on the many supercontinents that preceded Pangaea?
Here's the article on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.
Stuart
Within an order of magnitude means 3.47x10^1 mm per month, but not 3.47x10^2 mm per month, or 3.47x10^0 mm per month.
That is, 3.47 mm is within the same order of magnitude as 2.5 mm, but not in the same order of magnitude as 34.7 mm, or 0.347 mm.
Stuart