14 proofs of young earth by creationist fanatics lol

[cambrian_exp]

what i wanted to tell is, scientific community should ask questions instead of defending evolution, such as why only biblical creationist should be taught in schools why not islamic or hindu? amerika is a secular country every theory then should be taught. such questions should be asked, by the way i am from india and we have no creationists here, not a single and in our schools we have evolution every year! and no one here challenges evolution, in our syllabus evolution is cumpolsary, if you dont read it you lose the marks :D well back to point this is what i got from http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1842

 

============================================================

Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the Biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the Biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with the old-age view only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a recent creation.

 

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.

The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called "density waves."1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.2

 

2. Too few supernova remnants.

 

Crab Nebula

Photo: Courtesy of NASA

 

According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.3

 

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and © other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

 

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor. Rivers and dust storms dump mud into the sea much faster than plate tectonic sub-duction can remove it.

Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.

 

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.

Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

 

6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast. Electrical resistance in the earth's core wears down the electrical current which produces the earth's magnetic field. That causes the field to lose energy rapidly.

The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.15

 

7. Many strata are too tightly bent.

In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.16

 

8. Biological material decays too fast.

Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20

9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years. Radio Halo, Photo: Courtesy of Mark Armitage

Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.23,24

 

10. Too much helium in minerals.

Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.

 

11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.

With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world's best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.

Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

 

13. Agriculture is too recent.

The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.31

 

 

 

14. History is too short.

According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.31

 

[cambrian_exp]

although i am commerce student, i love reading about prehistory and evolution. but i was shocked when we had a few lines on evolution in enviormental science that to in commerce! what the hell commerce students will do of evolution? our government or education board is really mentally retartded to to have one science subject in commerce and arts and one commerce subject in science

[CPL.Luke]

sorry but I couldn't understand your second post,

 

as for the rest of it, its just the traditional creationist rubbish, although I did get a good chuckle out of it.

 

PS. gotta love the irony of your sig

[cambrian_exp]

huh? u didnt understant 2nd post? whay i meant to say is that i m commerce graduate and still we had evolution in our syllabus

[CPL.Luke]

sorry just had a problem with the grammar, was evolution in your syllabus as part of a bio course to round off your education or something like that?

 

or was it in the context of trying to demonstrate how evolution could be translated into some buisness practice?

[Hellbender]

although i am commerce student, i love reading about prehistory and evolution. but i was shocked when we had a few lines on evolution in enviormental science that to in commerce! what the hell commerce students will do of evolution? our government or education board is really mentally retartded to to have one science subject in commerce and arts and one commerce subject in science

I'm taking it you read about evolution in your environmental science class, and not a commerce class, right? Learning about evolution in environmental science isn't the shocker of the century, pal. Get used to the fact that in college, you may have to learn about things that don't directly relate to your major. These are called "fluff classes". I am a wildlife technology student-and I am taking a class on Australian literature. Go figure. The New York state board of trustees actually wants graduates to be exposed to different things.

[Daecon]

They're some very intersting points - if they're really valid.

 

Why is it left up to creationist to point these discrepancies and not the scientists themselves?

 

It seems a little suspicious to me...

[Molotov]

Number 1 can be explained by the presence of dark matter in galaxies. The amount is so large and dense that it prevents the normal matter from winding up by acting as a buffer.

 

Though dark matter has not been proven to exist yet.

[mmalluck]

The arguments made here make a number of assumptions that may or may not be correct.

 

1. Assumption: We know enough about the composition and nature of the universe to predict it's age from it's structure.

 

2. Assumption: The regons of space we can observe are the same as every region we can't.

 

3. improbability != impossibility

 

4. Assumption: The rates of erosion and landmass structure have been constant.

 

5. Assumption: The ocean dynamics are static as well as the processes that introduce and remove salt.

 

6. Assumption: The earths magnetic field is complex. Lets wave our hands about and say god did it.

 

7. Assumption: Rocks act the same on the surface of the earth as they do when they are heated and pressurized while buried deep in the earth.

 

8. Huh? Only 10,000 years? Why are these experts screaming bloody murder about this ancient dna? Also where are my dinosaur clones if this dna/soft tissue/blood cells are so perfectly perserved?

 

9. Polonium-210 only has a half-life of something like 100 days. A halo made a 100 years ago is going to look the same as one made a million years ago. All of the polonuim will have decayed in either case.

 

and on and on it goes.....

[Nevermore]

cambrian_exp, you are talking about the big bang, not evolution.

[PaulMerritt]

No, he is talking about evolution because evolution "supposedly" takes such a long time. i have a question...2nd law of thermodynamics states that everything (EVERYTHING!) moves from order to chaos. so umm.. how exactly can u have chaotic elements and organisms doing the opposite? either prove 2nd law of thermodynamics wrong, or identify evolution as a very much riddled-with-holes theory.

[Xyph]

1) More complex systems are more disordered.

 

2) The Earth isn't a closed system.

[In My Memory]

Cambrian_exp,

 

These "proofs" have been around for decades. In a nutshell, they dont find their way into textbooks because they arent scientific. In fact, back in 1998, the list had a few more items:

1) Galaxies Wind Up too Fast 2) Comets Disintegrate too Quickly 3) Earth’s Continents Erode too Fast 4) Not Enough Sediment on the Ocean Floor 5) The Ocean Accumulates Sodium too Fast 6) The Earth’s Magnetic Field is Decaying too Fast 7) Multi-Layer Fossils Straddle Too Many Strata 8) Many Strata Are too Tightly Bent 9) Out of Sequence Fossils Scramble Time Table 10) Not Enough Helium in the Earth’s Atmosphere 11) Too Much Helium in Hot Rocks 12) Agriculture is too Recent 13) Recorded History is to Short 14) The Earth's Spin 15) Receding Moon 16) Receding Sun 17) Cosmic Dust

 

 

[b']1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.[/b]

Notice in all of this, the author doesnt give a single number, nor indicate how fast the galaxy is rotating.

 

Just for the record, the solar system takes 220 millions to orbit the galaxy. That isnt so fast.

 

But, more importantly, this information comes from a man by the name of Humpreys whose methodology is seriously faulty: the author was a guy by the name of Humphrey, who deduced his conclusion by following a model from a supercomputer. The problem: he made all the starts attract to the center of the galaxy, but not to each other. (I apologize that I dont have a reference, I lost the link when I lost my post after an IE crash.)

 

 

2. Too few supernova remnants.

 

Crab Nebula

Photo: Courtesy of NASA[/left]

Also courtesy of Nasa' date=' this page titled Refuting the claim that Supernova Remnants are only 10,000 years old:

... we observe supernova remnants up to abound 100,000 years old, when they fade into the interstellar medium.

 

Now if the goal of this is to find the age of the universe, supernova remnants are not the objects to look at. This is simply because they become mixed up with the interstellar medium after only about 100,000 years. The universe is much older than that, which we know from the oldest stars (on the order of 10,000,000,000 years old). In addition, we observe distant objects that are billions of light years away.

The author makes the claim that supernova remants "should remain visible for over a million years" - but, this isnt true. The remnants have a upper-bound lifetime of about 100,000 years. The TalkOrigins Supernova page confirms this, stating that fewer than 20% of all supernova explosions last more than 50,000 years, and fewer than 1% last more than 100,000 years.

 

The reason why we dont see so many is not because they havent happened yet, but because we only have a 100,000 year window to see those that have happened. The author makes the claim that we've only seen enough supernova to account for the last 7000 years, but I'm willing to bet if the author inflated the lifetime of supernova remants by 10x, he very likely deflated the number of expected supernovas by a similarly absurb amount as well.

 

[b']3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.[/b]

Its wrong to assume all the comets that exist today are the only comets there have ever been - many new comets are formed all the time.

 

The author also takes a few potshots at the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud, known sources of existing comets - I dont know what the purpose of this has been, those two objects have been a unique area of study for astronomers for years. It almost seems as if the author is trying to suggest that those objects are "hoaxes" created by astronomers for their own conspiratorial needs

 

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.

 

... The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.

Its not uniformly distributed. Some places like river deltas have a lot of mud' date=' and other places like the faultlines along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge have almost no mud at all.

 

And then there are some places where the mud has accumulated for hundreds of millions of years, leading it be many kilometers thick. See NOAA Ocean Explorer:

To understand why these seeps formed, you’ll have to take a trip back in time to the Jurassic period. During this period, the Gulf of Mexico was a much smaller basin, with only a small (relative to today) opening for water to enter. Because this opening was so small, the gulf periodically dried out completely, leaving a layer of salt (from the evaporation of seawater) behind. Eventually, the gulf flooded and then dried out again. This process occurred repeatedly for thousands of years, resulting in the deposition of thick layers of salt and minerals (up to 8-km thick) on the surface sediments.

400 meters is a far cry from 8 km.

 

[b']5. Not enough sodium in the sea.[/b]

There isnt much more I can say except the math to base this claim just wrong. Salt goes in the sea, but salt is also taken out of the sea in roughly the same amounts.

 

Also, there is no reason to suspect that the amount of salt deposited in the sea is constant, it could be very erratic throughout the past several ice-ages, so it probably isnt a very good clock to measure the earth with.

 

[b']6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.[/b]

This one has been around for years. The reason why its false is that is just uses an inappropriate model of the earth's magnetic field:

"Electrical resistance in the earth's core wears down the electrical current which produces the earth's magnetic field. That causes the field to lose energy rapidly"

 

In other words, the author interprets the origin of the earths magnetic field as being the result of a decaying electrical current.

 

However, no one seriously entertains that idea anymore. Today, we know the earths magnetic field is due to convection currents beneath the earths crust. A simple explanation can be found at MadSCI - What is the origin of the Earth's magnetic field (that page contains many links to more detailed explanations).

 

There is no point arguing for a young earth based on models that no one uses any more.

 

[b']7. Many strata are too tightly bent.[/b]

Rocks break and crack if you manipulate them quickly. However, they will give somewhat if their shapes are manipulated under subtle pressure for several million years.

 

[b']8. Biological material decays too fast.[/b]

The claims in this proof are just factually inaccurate. See the article written by Dr GH - Dino Blood and the Young Earth, and it becomes very clear: the preservation has been exaggerated. Soft tissue has never been discovered intact, although we have partially-fossilized tissue residues. We've never discovered intact DNA greater than 10,000 years old, and we have very rarely discovered broken DNA fragments of things roughly 300,000 years - DNA has never been recovered from things as old as dinosaurs.

 

Besides, the YECs are doing a number of things that are methodologically flawed, such as trying to date the age of fossils by how well-preseved they are - thats unscientific. And if a young-earth implies dinosaurs fossilized with soft-tissues, then the discovery of soft-tissue would be routine and mundane - but that isnt the case.

 

9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years

 

... imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals

Billions of years of radioactive decay produces billions of years of byproducts. To compress billions of years into a few a few months would vaporize the planet.

 

[b']10. Too much helium in minerals.[/b]

TalkOrigins has a very detailed page on this.

 

In short' date=' the minerals that appear to have excess helium were contaminated, usually because they came from sources sitting on volcanic vents.

 

[b']11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.[/b]

Carbon 14 is created all the time. See TalkOrigins Feedback Oct 1999:

Carbon 14 (14C) is produced in the upper atmosphere by the bombardment of atmospheric Nitrogen 14 (14N which makes up about 79% of the atmosphere) by neutrons (n) generated by cosmic rays. The resulting 15N nucleus should be stable, but the cosmic ray neutron carries too much energy and the 14N falls apart quickly into 14C plus a proton (p).

 

... As long as there are cosmic rays there will be 14C.

 

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.

Fossilization is rare. The current number of skeletons is nothing out of the ordinary.

 

[b']13. Agriculture is too recent.[/b]

This isnt a measurement of the earths age.

 

However, in general, early humans were nomadic. When it comes to tending crops, you have to remain in one place for months at a time, and there is a certain amount of skill that goes into growing plants, and it isnt so easy to cultivate plants during ice-ages. Adding to that, the difficulty in cultivating plants really comes in the tools: it requires domesticated animals, a small number of metal or wooden tools like a ploy, etc.

 

I might also add that there are a number of inventions that I find to be incredibly simple, even for the prehistoric people, but wonder why they werent invented sooner: steam engines (how hard is it to say "when I heat water, the steam pushes things; I think I'll wrap this jet of steam around a wheel to turn a paddle"), bricks, writing, etc.

 

14. History is too short.

Heres something to consider: the number of internet documents was close to zero before 1985, therefore the earth is only 15 years old. The flaw in this methodology is obvious: the age of the earth is not measured by the discovery of the internet.

 

Likewise, the span of human writings and paintings is not a measurement of the earths age either.

 

There really is no point in asking "why did history start at this time, and not at this other time"; that question is arbitrary, and could apply to any hypothetical timeline.

 

 

 

In short, the list of proofs for a young earth have been around forever, but they contain so many fundamental errors and factual inaccuracies that they'll never see their way into any scientific textbook (except for possibly reasons of historical curiosity). If someone says "theres an average of 400 meters of mud", and two seconds of google searching reveal that there are several kilometers of mud, you can be sure that the author didnt research too well.

[bascule]

The reason why its false is that is just uses an inappropriate model of the earth's magnetic field:

"Electrical resistance in the earth's core wears down the electrical current which produces the earth's magnetic field. That causes the field to lose energy rapidly"

 

In other words' date=' the author interprets the origin of the earths magnetic field as being the result of a decaying electrical current.

 

However, [i']no one[/i] seriously entertains that idea anymore. Today, we know the earths magnetic field is due to convection currents beneath the earths crust. A simple explanation can be found at MadSCI - What is the origin of the Earth's magnetic field (that page contains many links to more detailed explanations).

 

If the magnetic field were continually weakening, then how did it get started in the first place? The magnetic field is a feedback loop being generated by the core of the earth, which is spinning faster than the mantle and crust. As the core spins inside of the earth's magnetic field, it generates electricity which in turn produces the earth's magnetic field. This feeds back on itself, continually increasing the strength of the field until it stabilizes at a given strength, which is approximately .5 gauss for most places on earth.

 

The perceived intensity of the field is decreasing as it begins to lose a dipole configuration and enter a period of geomagnetic flux prior to a pole reversal, much like we're going into now. The poles could reverse as early as next century.

 

The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate.

 

I like how every theory in every field of science which supports the scientifically accepted age of the universe is an "evolutionary theory," and scientific theories about the operation of the Earth's magnetic field, which are based upon our knowledge of the laws of physics, decades of data collection, and models which accurately predict changes in the Earth's magnetic field are "very complex and inadequate."

 

The Earth's magnetic field reaches a stable dipole configuration after going through periods of geomagnetic flux. It remains in this stable dipole configuration for approximately 7,000 years, then geomagnetic anomalies begin to appear in its dipole configuration, little patches of opposite polarization which begin to grow, move, and churn into a full out geomagnetic storm. This will continue to increase in intensity until eventually the magnetic poles flip and settle into a stable dipole configuration for the next 7,000 years.

 

Of course, if you think the ENTIRE UNIVERSE is only 7,000 years old, I could see why your view is that the Earth's magnetic field is continually decreasing.

 

So what do they offer as an alternative explanation?

 

A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then. This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes. The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.

 

So let's check their sources here:

 

Humphreys, D. R., Reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the Genesis flood, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. II

 

Oh, I see, their "straightforward" theory based upon "sound physics" is that GOD made the Earth's magnetic field reverse!

 

So you have real science which explains paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, "most startlingly" with accurate computer models of geomagnetic storms which precipitate rapid pole reversals and rely on an entirely naturalist explanation, or you can say that... God did it. But don't trust science, its theories are "very complex and inadequate."

 

Nice job dissecting the rest In My Memory. I'd do the same except I felt it was a waste of time debunking such garbage

[The Nacho]

Of course, we could all be wrong and there are ducks on Mars and they created the earth and humans!

 

...we had evolution in our syllabus...

Seriously, they should teach evolution in public schools. Let the nuns and the priests teach creationism.

 

And aren't God and creationism just theories too?

[bascule]

And aren't God and creationism just theories too?

 

God is a hypothesis, not a theory. And given the rather unscientific nature of a deity, calling God a hypothesis is being pretty generous

[ydoaPs]

no, God is an imagniary friend. a cruel, jelous, physical law breaking, imaginary friend...not a theory

[AzurePhoenix]

And aren't God and creationism just theories too?

the term "Just a theory" is part of the problem (in regards to science-misconcpetions). A theory isn't just a smart guess, it has to be supported by lots of testing. Theories are strong, scientific platforms.

[rakuenso]

lol flamebait, lets not forget about the flying spaghetti monster.

[swansont]

No, he is talking about evolution because evolution "supposedly" takes such a long time. i have a question...2nd law of thermodynamics states that everything (EVERYTHING!) moves from order to chaos. so umm.. how exactly can u have chaotic elements and organisms doing the opposite? either prove 2nd law of thermodynamics wrong, or identify evolution as a very much riddled-with-holes theory.

 

That's interesting. Physics also has a second law of thermodynamics, that bears a faint resemblance to what you said. Where did you get your version?

[The Peon]

I do not think it was a waste of time to debunk this "garbage." You must remember many people who frequent this site are not geniuses and need these kind of things to be debunked so they are not fooled by this kind of rubbish. If you all want to see a planet free from ignorance we need to remember that humans have many levels on intelligence and that we need to cater to every ones level of absorption. Thank you guys and gals for debunking those points. I have never heard of them before and as I read them I was actually going hmmmm...

[Hellbender]

Use the search function. Just about every creationist argument has been refuted by us. Also, there are a lot of good sites that refute them too.

[Ophiolite]

Use the search function. Just about every creationist argument has been refuted by us. Also, there are a lot of good sites that refute them too.

But the individuals who are not trained in the scientific method may accept the creationist arguments. Pêön de has done a service by debunking here and now where it can be read by people reading this thread. People who are not going to search the rest of the forums, who are not going to look at TalkOrigins. I raise my glass to Pêön de.

[The Peon]

But the individuals who are not trained in the scientific method may accept the creationist arguments. Pêön de has done a service by debunking here and now where it can be read by people reading this[/u'] thread. People who are not going to search the rest of the forums, who are not going to look at TalkOrigins. I raise my glass to Pêön de.

 

 

Meh

[Pumices]

I am one of those "individuals who are not trained in the scientific method" so I am going to need some help on this. So those of you who are "trained in the scientific method" first define what the scientific method is and then use the scientific method to prove evolution and disprove creation or vise versa.