Conspiracy Theory???????

[Nathan David]

Well if Man came from Ape
then
Why can't LizardMan come from an alligator?
etc.................

It could. But it hasn't.

 

[Mike Flynn]

Well was it instant? or did it take a while (Slowy get weaker then Reverse?)

I wonder what would happen if the Magnetic Field was 0.......................

The magnetic field of the eath is not fixed. The poles move constantly. In fact, there are websites that will allow you to look up the current declination of the earth's poles for navigation purposes (although now with GPS and other systems the data is more relavent for geological reasons than for navigation). This is another piece of evidence that tells us that the earth's core is molten and contains moving charged particles.

There are various methods of determining the historical orientation of the earth's magnetic field (geological, etc). And its here that we find that flips have occured. I'm not sure how rapidly they happened...but such data is available.

If the Earth's magnetic field was zero it would be bad news for us (and our satellites, etc) since charged particles in the solar wind are deflected away from the earth by the field.

You can always do a google...I'm not sure how many geophysics type people hang out here.

 

[JGMEERT]

The magnetic field of the eath is not fixed. The poles move constantly. In fact, there are websites that will allow you to look up the current declination of the earth's poles for navigation purposes (although now with GPS and other systems the data is more relavent for geological reasons than for navigation). This is another piece of evidence that tells us that the earth's core is molten and contains moving charged particles.

There are various methods of determining the historical orientation of the earth's magnetic field (geological, etc). And its here that we find that flips have occured. I'm not sure how rapidly they happened...but such data is available.

If the Earth's magnetic field was zero it would be bad news for us (and our satellites, etc) since charged particles in the solar wind are deflected away from the earth by the field.

You can always do a google...I'm not sure how many geophysics type people hang out here.

JM:
once again http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/magfield.htm
or you can go to my website
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert


Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[Jet Black]

heh, what a shameless site plug

nice moustache btw

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

"Question If Earth is so old, doesn't that mean Earth's decaying magnetic field would have been unacceptably high at one time?
Answer No. The Earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity and reversed in polarity numerous times throughout the planet's history. "

WHAT? North was South? L O L How exactly does someone come up with that?

This was explained to you previously (http://www.christianforums.com/t62440) when you wanted to try to defend Hovind in a discussion (and later ducked out when all the refutations were in). Then again, you could have also read a basic, introductory geology text to give you that information as well. However this indicates that you don't really read what people write in full and/or don't have a desire to learn about anything that falsifies YECism.

 

[ZoneChaos]

The problem is that it would seem that the *entire universe* would have been made 'mature'.

Not a problem.. just obvious. On a smaller scale, think of all the events that would have seemed to transpire that never really did in creating Adam as an adult. All of his adult features that would lead you to believe he had existed for many years prior to his creation. And yet he was created mature (aged) from day one.

Why would it not also be so with the universe? Now, as far as dating found fossils, that's another argument, leading itself toward the flood, but in the case of fossil fuels, rock layers, supernovae, even light itself from these distant stars: All these things are detail signs of a mature universe, just as Adam in his adult form was.

It makes sense...why would God design creation to conflict with God's word? Clearly, we need to re-examine how we interpret God's word...our interpretations are subject to human error.

This doesn't mean that the Bible isn't true...it just means that we have not interpreted it correctly. Make no mistake, there is room for interpretation even if you *only look to scriptures* for it.

So, we either have a literal 6 days of creation, and an age of the universe that does not equal its length of existance, or we have a non-literal 6 days, possibly representing billions of years.

Unfortunately from here, we go into theory and assumption. Niether side can be "proven".

I found this during my surfing:

In one sense, the Bible agrees with the theory of huge time frames, but on the other hand, it also fits into a young Earth theory. This in no way implies that the Bible is wishy-washy. It simply means that it is ambiguous in relation to topics that it doesn't attempt to prove or disprove. All that we need to consider is that the Bible fits both equally well, if not by literal translation, then by scientific observation. This results in a conclusion where if one is proved true, and the other is proved untrue, the Bible will fit all of the facts, just as it does in every other instance. At the current time, we are simply unsure of which one it is meant to endorse.
Regardless of its final ruling, we know that the only true, historically accurate records we have are from the Bible. The God of the Bible is the one who created the heavens and the earth. OK, so maybe it happened in one week, or over many billions of years. Either way He is a master of His work. Look around throughout the expanse of the universe. There are so many wonders.

Either way you wish to believe, there is no direct conflict with science, only conflict with theory. There is no contradiction within scripture. And niether theory denies the validity of the salvation message.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

ZoneChaos

I mean no offence (honest) but do you live your life with such a wishy washy approach to theory and fact.

Do you believe in a deceitful God?

Because the whole premise of creating a mature universe with all things in place, and the creation of a history that never happened is deceit on the grandest scale.''

I want no part of such a God and would deny his divinity in such a case.

And, by the way, nothing in geology or paleontology leads to any global flood. There was no global flood, it's a myth.

 

[MartinM]

On a smaller scale, think of all the events that would have seemed to transpire that never really did in creating Adam as an adult. All of his adult features that would lead you to believe he had existed for many years prior to his creation

What, like an appendectomy scar, you mean?

No, I didn't think so. Thus proving that age != maturity

 

[Jet Black]

All these things are detail signs of a mature universe, just as Adam in his adult form was.

Did SN1987A ever explode?

 

[Vance]

Maturity would be necessary for survival.

This would not apply to the Earth. God need only create it in a way that would work. There would be no additional benefit to creating an earth (much less a Universe!) that has evidences of being billions of years old which do not effect its "workability".

Here is a good quote from a Old Earth Creationist:

A Biblical basis for "appearance of age" does not exist. Adam's adult body at the time of his creation would testify of age only if we made the incorrect assumption that he entered the world through the womb of a woman. We may also ask: What memories of his childhood and youth would he have had? Would God have created Adam with memories of events that had never taken place? It is difficult to see how such a creation would not make God a deceiver of Adam, building into his body inescapable impressions of the reality of events which in fact never occurred. The universe also has a kind of "memory" of the past; it is the light emitted long ago by distant objects that shows us what was happening at those objects at the time this light was emitted. "Appearance of age" has God filling virtually the entire universe with the physical equivalent of false memories.

 

[Arikay]

So, can you tell me why god needed to create dead animals in strata, or an earth that appears to be 750,000 Times older than it really is? That doesn't seem like maturity, that seems like deception.

 

[Mike Flynn]

Not a problem.. just obvious. On a smaller scale, think of all the events that would have seemed to transpire that never really did in creating Adam as an adult. All of his adult features that would lead you to believe he had existed for many years prior to his creation. And yet he was created mature (aged) from day one.

IOW, the light that we are seeing from distant stars today came from those stars before they existed? Why would God bother with steller events (that never happened) that have no bearing on creation as we know it? The universe does not require distant non-existant supernovae in order for life to exist here on earth, correct? Like I said, why would God make creation so that it would tend to trip us up?

So, we either have a literal 6 days of creation, and an age of the universe that does not equal its length of existance, or we have a non-literal 6 days, possibly representing billions of years.

Niether side can be "proven".

Of course not, because both positions take the universe as is. I could argue that perhaps the universe was created 'as is' yesterday, and all the history (even our memories...our posts to this forum, etc) was created by God as part of a 'mature creation'. Could you prove me wrong? Does that mean everyone should accept my theory as plausible? Obviously, even though there is no visceral proof that I am wrong, the argument can be thrown out simply because it is has no basis in fact whatsoever.

Maybe this is the case where its best to simply call a spade a spade ZoneChaos.

I found this during my surfing:


Either way you wish to believe, there is no direct conflict with science, only conflict with theory. There is no contradiction within scripture. And niether theory denies the validity of the salvation message.

If that's true, then why bother cooking up 'mature creation' at all? Why can't we just accept that God's creation is exactly what it seems to be?

The problem ZoneChaos, is that there is conflict with plausibility, both theologically and scientifically. And the 'mature creation' theory brings to the fore all sorts of uncomfortable questions about the motivations of God within a Christian context.

You have neglected to address one important point from my last post: Why would God *specifically* design creation so that it would obviously conflict with the literal interpretation of Genesis 1? Its not good enough to say 'no-one understands God'. We need to understand this because it was inevitable that our observations would eventually trip people up (and they certainly have!). God's creation in conflict with God's word. That is not the Lord as I have come to know Him.

I think the most plausible approach both theologically and scientifically is to assume that just as the Bible represents the real Word of God (and is theologically True), so God's creation is also 'true' and we can take it at face value. When we get both interpretations right, there will be no conflict. And right now it looks like the literal interpretation of the Bible needs to be reconsidered. Why is it so hard for some people to accept this as an option. Do they think the literal biblical interpretations are perfect?

I don't think we need to invent a contrived formulation of creation simply to satisfy the biblical literalists...they have already thrown enough stumbling blocks out into the science community as it is. Perhaps its long overdue that some Christians come to grips with the idea that the literal translation should be reconsidered.

You are absolutely right about one thing, however. None of this has anything to do with Christian salvation. I'm happy to see that there are Christians that understand this important point.

 

[Raydar]

Why is it that most of the creation scientists seem to be engineers and medical doctors with no training and/or education in the fields of geology/physics/astronomy/biology. That is they are laymen. As a physicist the physics arguments I see often seem to lack even an understanding of high school level physics which makes it kind of hard to take the same person seriously when they start discussing more advanced topics. For example vapour canopy arguments seem to have forgotten 10th grade science.

I think most of the people educated in the fields of geology/physics/astronomy/biology were so by college professors who already had a humanistic world view and would only teach that view to their students and possibly only pass students that took that view. Thus leaving only a few people who took up a biblical worldview after their graduation.

 

[Jet Black]

I think most of the people educated in the fields of geology/physics/astronomy/biology were so by college professors who already had a humanistic world view and would only teach that view to their students and possibly only pass students that took that view. Thus leaving only a few people who took up a biblical worldview after their graduation.

err, have you ever taken a physics or geology exam at university level? I have two masters degrees, and not once was anything o do with religion even mentioned. no worldview was ever taught to me, no threats were made to fail me if I did not have a humanistic world view, they just taught us the facts, nothing more, and let us interpret them as we like.

 

[Jet Black]

oops

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Raydar,

I have known many religious teachers and professors in the sciences.

In my field of astrophysics I agree atheism/agnosticism is a majority.

But I'll tell you why most scientists reject creationism. It's not because of a conspiracy it's because the observed facts do not support a creationist viewpoint.

It's only the people who don't understand the science who seem to fall for the creationist position.

In fact to most of my colleagues, their reaction to creationists is one of rolling on the floor and laughing their a***s off.

It's hard to take creationists seriously when most of them would flunk freshmen level physics. And this is not an exaggeration. Most of them seem to lack the wherewithal to handle the academic discipline necessary. I'm sorry if that sounds elitist or harsh but it is a fact.

 

[ZoneChaos]

You have neglected to address one important point from my last post: Why would God *specifically* design creation so that it would obviously conflict with the literal interpretation of Genesis 1?

The conflict comes from interpretation. It can be said that God created a mature earth, and that the Mature Earth theory supports a literal creation, from certain view of interpretation. The conflict you speak of is relative to the one theorizing.

Its not good enough to say 'no-one understands God'. We need to understand this because it was inevitable that our observations would eventually trip people up (and they certainly have!). God's creation in conflict with God's word.

Where you see conflict, I do not I suppose. Though, I do understand how you can see it... I just don't.

That is not the Lord as I have come to know Him.

I think the most plausible approach both theologically and scientifically is to assume that just as the Bible represents the real Word of God (and is theologically True), so God's creation is also 'true' and we can take it at face value. When we get both interpretations right, there will be no conflict. And right now it looks like the literal interpretation of the Bible needs to be reconsidered. Why is it so hard for some people to accept this as an option. Do they think the literal biblical interpretations are perfect?

I don't think any interpretations are perfect, due to their source.

I don't think we need to invent a contrived formulation of creation simply to satisfy the biblical literalists...they have already thrown enough stumbling blocks out into the science community as it is.

"We" don't. They do.

Perhaps its long overdue that some Christians come to grips with the idea that the literal translation should be reconsidered.

Better yet, that it does not really matter...

You are absolutely right about one thing, however. None of this has anything to do with Christian salvation. I'm happy to see that there are Christians that understand this important point.

Amen!

 

[Arikay]

Yep, its all a big conspiracy theory.

Lets ignore the fact that one of the Professors here is a christian, biologist and he doesn't seem to have a problem with what is being taught, or with staying christian.

I think most of the people educated in the fields of geology/physics/astronomy/biology were so by college professors who already had a humanistic world view and would only teach that view to their students and possibly only pass students that took that view. Thus leaving only a few people who took up a biblical worldview after their graduation.

 

[Raydar]

Yep, its all a big conspiracy theory.

Lets ignore the fact that one of the Professors here is a christian, biologist and he doesn't seem to have a problem with what is being taught, or with staying christian.

Excuse me, I did not say all college professors, but most have a humanist word view.

 

[Raydar]

And if implied that, I apologize