Fairy tale example number one: How do they explain the creation of the Universe?
When you consider ages of the Universe, the Solar System and the Earth, they are all different questions. Above is a fascinating conjecture, based on both scripture and evidence gathered from scientists observing the Universe, of how the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe might be considered from the point of view of God, the One inspiring the writer to write. But not the kind of conjecture we usually get from Darwinists, he has evidence and he lays out the case for said evidence very clearly.
Some of you may remember the posts made on Dr. Moshe Carmeli's Theory of Cosmological Relativity? Dr. Russell Humphreys used a different explanation for the difference in observed time scales but his ability to solve for and predict planetary gravitational fields, which he accurately predicted long before space missions detected magnetic fields of various planets, turned out to be correct. His White Hole Cosmology Theory does work out in much the same way, or should I say gives us the same approximate ages for the Universe and the Earth as do the the assertions of Schroeder and Carmeli.
Creation science has also made predictions about the Solar System that support the idea of a young Solar System that is about the age of the Earth. If you want to read up on Dr. Humphrey's correct predictions about the magnetic fields of planets? The following link will take you to an online publication from CRSQ Volume 21, Number 3 (December 1984), published BEFORE space missions detected and measured the fields of Mars, Uranus and Neptune and also predicting the rapid degradation of the magnetic field of Mercury. We have to wait until 2015 for the measurement of the magnetic field of Pluto:
"In this paper Dr. Humphreys made predictions about the magnetic fields of Mercury, Mars, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, well before those magnetic fields were measured by spacecraft. Here we have printed the six predictions (two for mercury) in red font. As of July, 2012, the first five have turned out to be "right on," whereas the expectations of evolutionists were not fulfilled. The last prediction concerns Pluto, which won't be visited by the NASA New Horizons spacecraft until July, 2015. Both evolutionists and creationists expect Pluto to consist mainly of ice (a poor electrical conductor), in which case neither theory would predict Pluto to have a magnetic field today."
After Mercury's magnetic field was detected in the Mariner 10 flybys of the mid-70's, Darwinists downplayed the presence of a magnetic field on Mercury despite the implications for the age of the Solar System. Dr. Humphreys published his findings long before space missions to other planets confirmed the magnetic fields that the Darwinists did not imagine would be there and cannot explain and also predicted the degradation in the magnetic field of Mercury, which was confirmed by later space missions.
Check out Spike Psarris' posts and DVDs concerning the Solar System and also the stars and galaxies and why the stories you were told in school about them were just that, stories!
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
- Ness, N. F. 1979. The magnetic field of Mercury. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors. 20 (2-4): 209-217.
- Humphreys, D. R. 1984. The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 21 (3): 140-149.
- Humphreys, D. R. 2008. Mercury's magnetic field is young! Journal of Creation. 22 (3): 8-9.
- Humphreys, D. R. 1990. Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation. Acts & Facts. 19 (5).
- Anderson, B. J. et al. 2011. The Global Magnetic Field of Mercury from MESSENGER Orbital Observations. Science. 333 (6051): 1859-1862.
Once a law of science is established it is supposed to remain a law until it is disproven. No one has disproven the Law of Biogenesis and the article below will include links that demonstrate why this is true. There are hard chemical barriers to prevent the raw materials aka building blocks of life from forming in nature AND there is no source for the information found in organisms NOR is there any natural source for designing all the molecular machines found in organisms...So one has to ask why anyone would just toss out a law of science? Obviously for unscientific metaphysical reasons!
Posted on August 22, 2013 in Dumb Ideas, Intelligent Design, Philosophy of Science, SETI
Origin-of-life researchers assume that intelligently-designed experiments in the lab can inform them about the emergence of life without design – in short, that design proves non-design.