</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fogus,
You make it look as though creationists have manipulated numbers to fit their beliefs. You go further to say that evolutionists have not changed their data but have changed their theories.
Scientific theory and knowledge is subject to peer review all over the world and is constantly changing.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Yes it is open to peer review. But both of our sides are guilty of missinformation and incorrect arguements at some time.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by
Quote:
Originally Posted by
You also claim that creationism is not a science because it searches for data to fit the belief that God created the earth in 6 days which are 24hrs. long each. What do you think the “scientists” were doing when they dug up Nebraska “man”?
The Nebraska man story is old and was never taken seriously for long by scientists. It is a good example of how science weeds out bad data and information.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
This is an example of how evolutionists are guity of missinformation. Creationists are guilty of it to. Go to AiG and look at their discarded arguements list. This was published in their mag. I would appreciate if the evolutionists were to publish a similer list of all their discarded argurments. It is said that creationists do not acnowledge their mistakes and that evolutionists are not guilty of this. This is certainly not true.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by
Quote:
Originally Posted by
What do you think the mars rovers are doing? Why are we spending millions of dollars looking for water, or even a simple sign of life from outer space?
I think its great that were exploring and understanding the universe. President George Bush, a fundimentalist Chriatian, fully supports the exploration of Mars and space.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
You can’t say that becase pres bush is a fundamentalest and that he believes that the rovers are good that all fundamentalists do. Science and religion are not doen by the majority rule, nor are they doen by the celebrity opinion rule.
Like it or not, we are spending millions on rovers looking for the source of life for evolution to start on earth. I am saying that the scientists who have decided to spend such vast amoutns of money on these things are biased, and i hope you agree. I am biased to. So are you. That is all im saying.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by
Quote:
Originally Posted by
What are we doing with all of the millions of dollars of research going towards evolutionary “science”?
Great! But not enough. A lot of the research goes to the field of genetics and the benifits have been significant.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
All I’m saying is that we are spending money on this rather than other things because we are biased. Did you realize how cheap it would be to send fresh water to the whole world? I herd something under $5 billion.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by
Quote:
Originally Posted by
If science really changes its truth to match reality then why does it not look at the other 90% of dating methods which point to a young earth? Why is the dynamo theory of the earth’s magnetic field accepted when the rapid decay theory fits the data with extreme accuracy in comparison? The answer is that every “scientist” has a bias! You can’t escape from it! I will agree with all of your numbers about the similarity between the DNA of humans and apes. In fact I will agree with you on everything you can observe. You can use carbon dating, but I won’t agree that the world is millions of years old because your math can pump out big numbers; carbon dating can’t give ages larger than 50,000 years accurately.
Much misinformation. Of course carbon dating cannot date anything older than about 50,000 years old. The dating methods for older rocks uses strategraphy and the radioactive decay of heavier elements.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I know, but the general public doesn’t. Numbers in the millions are thrown at them, and they take it in.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by
What source do you quote that shows 90% of dating methods point to a young earth? The decay rates of some heavier elements have half lives greater than the time frame for a young earth.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
AiG has some nice lists. If you cant find one il e-mail them and ask them for their source of one i have.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by
The rapid decay currently observed in the magnetic field fits the long history of the earth, because it fits the cyclic switch of the polarity of the earth over the history of millions of years.
Many scientists do have bias, just like the sky is blue, but peer review, critisim, new research and new research methods among the scientists weed out the false information like the 'Nebraska man' example you sited. Change is apart of the progress of science. That's why you are not riding a horse to work today.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
About the rapid decay theory:
(This is from Dr. Jay L. Wile's text book on physics)
“There are basically two theories that try to explain where this electrical current in the earth's core comes from. The first theory, called the dynamo theory, is believed by the majority of geologists. today. This theory says that the rotation of the earth, along with other, random currents that naturally occur in the liquid core of the earth, cause the liquid core to move in one general, overall direction. This motion causes the motion of electrical charges in the core, which in the end creates electrical current, just like electricity running through a wire. Just like Experiment 6.2, then, this would cause the earth to be magnetic.
The second theory, which is believed by a minority of geologists, is called the rapid decay theory. This theory states the electrical current of the earth is a consequence of how it was formed. If one makes a few assumptions about how the earth was formed, it is possible to actually calculate how much electrical current would be generated as a result. That electrical current would then begin to slow down over time, because electrical flow is resisted by all matter through which it flows. That is why the aluminum foil in the experiment got so hot. The aluminum foil resisted the flow of electricity, and a lot of heat was generated as the aluminum foil caused the electricity to slow down. In the end, then, Just as the flow of electricity is resisted: by the wire in which it moves, the flow of the electrical current in the earth's core would be resisted as well. This would cause the current to slow down, eventually stopping.
Do you see the difference between the two theories? The dynamo theory says that the 1 \motion of the earth and the random motion of the core work together to keep the electrical current in the core going. The rapid decay theory says that the earth's inner core is actually slowing down the flow of electricity that was started as a consequence of how the earth was formed. Well, since the majority of geologists believe the dynamo theory, it must be the correct one, right? Not necessarily. Science is not done by majority rule. It is done by experiment. We cannot directly observe the core of the earth to see whether it is helping the electrical current or slowing it down, but we can observe it indirectly.
How do we observe the inner core indirectly? We determined its size and composition by examining the way it responded to seismic waves. Another way to examine it indirectly is to make careful measurements of the magnetic field that it produces. Now remember how we try to determine the validity of a scientific theory when we are making indirect observations. We use the theory to make predictions, and then we compare those predictions to data that we collect. In the end, the theory that is most consistent with the data is the one that we should believe.
The first thing that we can observe about the magnetic field is that its strength is decaying. Over the past 150 years, scientists have been making careful measurements of the strength of earth's magnetic field, and these measurements tell us that over time, the earth's magnetic field is getting weaker. Which theory best explains this fact? Well, they both do, but the rapid decay theory does a slightly better job. The rapid decay theory predicts a rather steady decay in the earth's magnetic field, and that's what's been observed over the last 150 years. The dynamo theory predicts a changing magnetic field, because the random currents in the inner core will sometimes add to and sometimes take away from the movement caused by the earth's rotation. It could be that during the past 150 years, this is what has been occurring. Thus, both theories predict changes in the earth's magnetic field, but the rapid decay theory explains the data more directly.
The next thing we can observe about the magnetic field is that throughout the history of the earth, it has most likely reversed a few times. What this means is that during certain times in earth's past, there is evidence to indicate that the field actually pointed in the opposite direction. How do we know this? Well, there are certain materials in the lithosphere that are naturally magnetic. These materials always tend to point north, like a compass. In certain rock layers of the lithosphere, however, those natural magnets imbedded in the rock are pointed in the opposite direction. This would indicate that when those rock layers formed, the earth's magnetic field was actually pointed in the opposite direction, as compared to the direction in which it is pointed today.
Which theory explains this fact? Well, they both do. Once again, however, one theory has the edge. This time, it is the dynamo theory. The dynamo theory predicts such reversals, because it predicts that the random currents in the inner core will, every now and again, overpower the motion caused by the rotation of the earth. This will cause the electrical current to flow in the opposite direction, causing the magnetic field to reverse. The rapid decay model allows for magnetic field reversals, too, but only in the event of cataclysmic volcanic and geological activity. If such activity happened in the past, then the rapid decay theory allows for several magnetic reversals as well.
The final thing that we can observe is the magnetic fields of other planets. After all, any
theory that explains the earth's magnetic field should be able to explain the magnetic fields of the other planets that have them, right? It should also be able to explain why certain planets do not have magnetic fields. Which theory best fits the data in this case? Only the rapid decay theory. The rapid decay theory has correctly calculated the magnetic field of every planet that has one. In addition, the dynamo theory predicts a magnetic field on the planet Mars, while the rapid decay theory says there should not be one.
The data indicate that Mars has no magnetic field!
Conversely, the dynamo theory predicts no magnetic field on Mercury, while the rapid decay theory predicts that Mercury should have a magnetic field. It turns out that Mercury does have a magnetic field. Even more convincing, years before the Voyager spacecraft measured the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune, scientists used both the rapid decay theory and the dynamo theory to make predictions of the strength of both planets' magnetic fields. The rapid decay theory correctly predicted the results of Voyager's measurements, while the dynamo theory was off by a factor of 100,000!
In the realm of science, a theory that attempts to explain a phenomenon we cannot
observe directly must be consistent with any indirect measurements we make. In the case of a planet's magnetic field, only the rapid decay theory is consistent with all measured data. Why, then, do the majority of scientists believe in the dynamo theory? Well, it turns out that the rapid decay theory has two consequences that the majority of scientists don't want to believe. First, in order to be consistent with the idea of magnetic field reversals, the rapid decay theory must rely on a global, cataclysmic event. Most geologists don't believe that such an event ever occurred.
Geologists that believe in Noah's Flood, however, know that such an event did happen. Rapid decay theorists say that an event such as Noah's Flood explains these magnetic field reversals in the context of their theory.
The other consequence makes even more geologists uneasy. If you use the rapid decay theory to predict what the magnetic field was like in earth's past, you find out that the earth had to have been formed less than 10,000 years ago. Otherwise, the electrical current necessary to sustain the magnetic field would have been so large that it would cause the earth to explode!
This makes many geologists uneasy, because they want to believe that the earth is much older than that! Thus, since the rapid decay theory assumes that a world-wide, cataclysmic event such as Noah's Flood occurred sometime in earth's past, and since the rapid decay theory concludes that the earth must be less than 10,000 years old, most geologists reject it. They reject it despite the fact that it is the only theory consistent will all of the data collected!
Bible-believing Christians, of course, have no problem with assuming that Noah's Flood really happened and that the earth is less that 10,000 years old. Thus, it is easy for them to accept the consequences of the rapid decay model, and thus most of the scientists who believe the rapid decay model are Bible-believing Christians.
This brings me to one of the most important points you will ever learn when it comes to science: There is no such thing as an unbiased scientist. People seem to have the view that scientists are unbiased observers who look at the facts and draw conclusions only from those facts. Although this is the ideal scientist, such a scientist does not exist. A scientist's preconceived notions will strongly affect the way he or she does science! The two theories that try to explain the earth's magnetic field is a great illustration of this point. Scientists whose preconceived notions rule out Noah's Flood and a young earth refuse to believe the most scientifically valid theory for the earth's magnetic field. Instead, they rely on a theory that has been demonstrated to go against one of the major observables related to a planet's magnetic field! They go against the dictates of science solely because of bias caused by preconceptions. Scientists who do not have those preconceptions are free to choose the more scientifically valid theory. This is not to say that Bible-believing scientists are unbiased. They have their preconceptions as well. In this case, though, their preconceptions aid in following the dictates of Science.”
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by
I do have a real problem with the 'Creation Science' advocates abusing science and taking quotes out of context like your example of the James Barr letter.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
About the letter: all i was saying was that the writer of genesis meant what he said, literally. I am not trying to say that because he says that the author meant that that it is so. I don’t care if he thinks the author is wrong, I was just saying that I believe genesis to mean 6, 24 hour days because the author meant that. I believe that the author of the letters is a man, but the author of the meaning is God, and I believe God meant 6, 24 hour days.