Evolution? How?

To say that the OT is 'plagiarized' or a 'compilation of traditions' is a bit off the mark, to say the least.

Adam and Eve had knowledge of the One True God from the beginning. That knowledge was passed on to their descendants. Sometimes it was ignored and sometimes not.

By the time of Noah, few were following the God that had walked with Adam ( and Enoch, etc ).

God judged the world, leaving Noah and his family to start over with the knowledge of the One God who had created all, and was Judge of all.

Again, Noah's descendants sometimes listened and obeyed the teaching that was handed down to them, sometimes not. Their families and the nations that developed from them carried with them some of this knowledge, some of it was lost, ignored or corrupted into vaguely similar but not identical forms.

Abraham did listen and God revealed Himself further based on Abraham's faith and faithfulness. This knowledge was passed on to Abraham's descendants, one of whom (Joseph) ruled Egypt under Pharaoh.

Hundreds of years later, Moses would put this history and the principles into writing in the Pentateuch.

So when we say that monotheism and other ideas that are in the Bible were actually around long before Bible was put into written form ---DOH! This knowledge was with Mankind from the Beginning.

"I've cited several specific instances of evidence that supports creation and undermines the evolutionary hypotheses."

I've cited several specific instances of evidence that supports creation and undermines the evolutionary hypotheses.

Basically what FM said.

Evolutionists postulate the Earth to be 5-6 billion years old. A recalculated age of even half that would probably be devastating to the evolutionary theory, since it supposedly took 3/4 of a billion years just to get from Earth's beginning to the first living organism.

So if data from the magnetic field indicates that the Earth's age is more likely measured in millions or even 1-3 billion, that would spell serious trouble for the evolutionary hypothesis, I think most would agree.

yawn, Im not gonna cruise back through the 10 or so pages Ive missed but why does real life, in Wolf's quote attribute that boxed statement to me??
I said nothing of the sort, in fact my comment to real life was the word "IF" is the main structure of his thesis.

There are probably at least 14! methods of radioactive decay methods, and new ones are developed yearly.

real life, basically the USGS geomag program just agreed with me. Youre initial post was that a "continuous" field intensity decrease was consistant with a "young earth" , lets not forget that. I stated that the field intensity isnt decaying, in fact, it varies and has been realtively flat since 1935.

Humphries is making a statement that "if this is what really happened , we would recognize a loss in total field strength by half every 1500 years. Even he is trying to obviate any reasonable discussion about a meaning of field strength. He does admit (through very vague language) that these "young earth douches" are guilty ofmaking long term projections from minimal synoptic data. Humphries is famous as the master of the bleedin obvious.
We see that the total field varies all over the map and he earth has had as many as 10 different "poles" at the same time. If Humphries was honest , he would record the fact that an incidental "tripole" has been recently asserting itself

Quote:

don't exactly sound adamant that a continual decrease is not still taking place. It simply offers speculation that it may (or may not) reverse.

Obviously then your reading skills need some serious attention. The USGS wording is clear and unambiguous. Humphries, on the other hand demonstrates his "after work" hobby of obfuscating science to fit his religious beliefs.

Using ambiguous 1967 data, ..... energy gains in minor ("non-dipole") parts (seemed to) compensate for the energy loss from the main ("dipole") part. Using data from the International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF)... from 1970 to 2000, the dipole part of the field steadily lost 235 ± 5 billion megajoules of energy, while the non-dipole part gained only 129 ± 8 billion megajoules. Over that 30-year period, the net loss of energy from all observable parts of the field was 1.41 ± 0.16 %. At that rate, the field would lose half its energy every 1465 ± 166 years.

from 1970 to 2000, the dipole part of the field steadily lost 235 ± 5 billion megajoules of energy

from 1970 to 2000.....the non-dipole part gained only 129 ± 8 billion megajoules