Re: Reply to Bongstar420
jahis4us wrote:Maybe this posting is the result of a print shop explosion. And maybe as the type fell from the sky it decided to evolve and digitize itself (definitely the next step in evolution) forming this posting.
Why does everyone reading this know I'm be facetious?
They know because there is intelligence behind these letters, words, sentences, and paragraphs. Coherent thoughts (whether you agree with them or not is another issue.) There is order, complexity, and purpose.
...
My faith is supported by the evidence and every discovery of science only shows the complexity of creation. It shows order. It shows purpose. Science shows creation to be well thought out, coherent even. We know in practice this can not happen by accident. Wherever we see these characteristics we automatically ask, "Who did this?"
My faith in Jesus is supported by the evidence. I've looked at the evidence thoroughly. How about you?
Yes, I have.
OK, so does order really only come as a result of a conscious intent? When sand trickles down into a pile, the pile is conical. Now a cone is an ordered shape. Does god, therefore, organize each collision of one grain against another to fulfill his purpose that the pile be conical? Or maybe, just maybe, dissipative systems like this can exhibit spontaneous order-forming behavior. Other dissipative systems include crystal growth, snowflake formation and--horrors--organic life itself.
The formation of every single snowflake that has ever existed must be a discrete miracle, and not a natural process at all, since a snowflake is much more "orderly" and contains more "information" than the vapor or droplets from which it forms. A more likely answer: neither is miraculous and neither offends the thermodynamic sensibilities of nature. Everything in this world that works, works by temporarily and locally reducing entropy. Maybe the real miracle was performed by god when he designed a universe with natural laws that permit such wonders as snowflakes to form and eagles to evolve, without his constant tinkering.
And what about cans of mixed nuts? More order instead of chaos. Big nuts go to the top, small nuts go to the bottom. Don't those containers know that the odds of that happening by chance alone is trillions to one against? It's against the second law of thermodynamics (not!)
jahis4us wrote:Yes, Absolutely, I do believe the Biblical account of creation. But it should be pointed out the Bible starts out "In the beginning...", it does not give us a date.
Sorry jahis, the detailed genealogies of the Bible are in fact one of the key ways creatonists have 'proved' the Earth to be about 6,000 years old. If you'd like, I can show you how to calculate the Earth's age using the Bible on your own.
jahis4us wrote:For example: Dr. Thomas G Barnes has shown that the earth's magnetic field is decaying exponentially. It's half-life is approximately 1400 years. Another words, 1400 years ago the magnetic field was twice as strong as today. I f we go back 10,000 years, the earth's magnetic field would have been as strong as a magnetic star! This is highly unlikely, therefore, the earth is probably less than 10,000 years old.
A little research of the subject may have shown you that Barnes' calculations leave many things to be desired. Among
many other problems with it, there was a study in the '60s that showed the decrease in the dipole component of the field since the turn of the century had been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components. (In other words, the measurements show the field has been diverging from the shape that'd be expected of a theoretical ideal magnet, more than the amount of energy has actually been changing.) Barnes' extrapolation therefore doesn't really rest on the change in
energy of the field. There's also overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on field strength useless. Hmm, even some young-Earthers admit to that these days..
jahis4us wrote:Another Example: Cosmic Dust. The earth receives approximately 14 million tons per year. If the earth is 5 Billion years old, then there should be 182 feet of cosmic dust covering the earth. No such layer exists. Even on the moon the astronauts only found about an eighth of an inch of cosmic dust, blowing away the old universe theory.
Out & out false. First of all, that's negligible compared to the processes of erosion on the Earth (about a shoebox-full of dust per acre per year). Second, Hans Pettersson, the guy responsible for the 15 million tons/year figure, stood on a mountain and collected dust with a device intended for measuring smog levels. He measured the amount of nickel collected, and published calculations based on the assumption that all nickel he collected was meteoritic in origin. That assumption was wrong and caused his published figures to be a vast overestimate. But even he, in the very same paper, said he believed that value to be an over-estimate, and said that 5 million tons per year was a more likely figure.
Several measurements of higher precision give the value (for influx rate to the Earth) of about 20,000 to 40,000 tons per year. Multiple measurements (chemical signature of ocean sediments, satellite penetration detectors, microcratering rate of objects left exposed on the lunar surface) all agree on approximately the same value.
Andrew Snelling and David Rush, both of whom are "strongly identified with the most conservative segment of biblical creationism" (and from what I can see they are spoken highly of in the website you listed), presented the following in the results of their seven-year investigation on the accumulation of lunar mantle rock.
Snelling & Rush wrote:the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early [more] intense meteorite and meteoritic dust bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year time scale (while not proving it).... creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system
From:
"Dusty Evidence"
