3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsMy point is that regardless of the strength of the refutation, you accept your original link as 100% proof which cannot possibly be refuted (i.e. that magnetic field strength has been decreasing at a constant proportional rate). Yet there is still vast amounts of evidence in other areas which does prove that this planet and the universe is much more than 6,000 years old (e.g. evidence from radioactive decay, light reaching us from stars which are more than 6,000 light years away, fossil evidence, DNA evidence). A combination of scientific work in biology, nuclear physics, relativity and astrophysics done all the time that you can't even carry out if all of this was incorrect.
APPARENTLY, I am not as stupid as some who will accept this kind of
so-called refutation. I did not refute it because it makes no sense
and it does not refute anything than requires me to refute. Crazy, huh?
😏
I can just about accept why many people will believe in old Earth creationism as well as evolution (something I do not agree with, by the way, but that will be digressing), but belief in young Earth creationism is completely beyond comprehension.
EDIT: It is also certainly possible to work out what the magnetic field strength was at certain points in history. Are you suggesting you cannot work out how old a tree is by just chopping it down? Even if you weren't around hundreds of years ago to be able to plant it?
Originally posted by lauseyIf the tree was created by God as a mature tree, Adam would not be
My point is that regardless of the strength of the refutation, you accept your original link as 100% proof which cannot possibly be refuted (i.e. that magnetic field strength has been decreasing at a constant proportional rate). Yet there is still vast amounts of evidence in other areas which does prove that this planet and the universe is much more than 6,00 ...[text shortened]... ust chopping it down? Even if you weren't around hundreds of years ago to be able to plant it?
able to tell how old it was by any method we have today. If it was
planted from a seed, he could get a much better idea how old it is.
Originally posted by RJHindsDeclaring that "it makes no sense" to you does not constitute evidence, proof or a refutation of anything.
APPARENTLY, I am not as stupid as some who will accept this kind of
so-called refutation. I did not refute it because it makes no sense
and it does not refute anything than requires me to refute. Crazy, huh?
Originally posted by RJHindsi'm sorry, dear boy. you'll need to read further than the introduction of the physics book in order to understand physics.
From the Laws on Magnetism and Thermodynamics:
The Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field as Evidence of a Young Earth
The known decay in the earth's magnetic field and the inexorable depletion
of its energy clearly point to an imminent and inevitable end of the earth's
magnetic field. A Department of Commerce publication lists evaluations of
the stre ...[text shortened]... Earth's Magnetic Field, Impact No. 100
Institute for Creation Research, 1981.)
Originally posted by RJHindsheheh. add geology to another one of the sciences that you have absolutely no clue about.
...
Is anyone actually stupid enough to believe someone measured the strength of
earth's magnetic field 6,500 years ago. It must have been one of Adam and
Eve's grandsons. This is all to stupid to make a good joke.
...