It's good to see you using some critical faculties here Russ. Maybe you can apply them to the next Hovind video you watch.
Now both of the sources I cited here have explained quite well what some of the problems are with the OP.
These "explanations" are available for all to observe.
"> Decay of earth's magnetic field 10,000
There is no decay of the magnetic field."
On his say-so alone, we're to conclude this is all make-believe and throw out the empirical evidence, I guess. I hope some observers will be objective enough to understand why I don't jump right aboard the anything-but-the-truthists' bandwagon.
For example, why don't Morris & co. realise that as rocks get eroded, other rocks are being created?
Who says they don't realize? Talkdeceptions? So what? Talkdeceptions doesn't realize that most people who can navigate the internet and read have brains in their heads. They
assume just the opposite, and in keeping with their customs, they run with the assumption and never question it.
This is basic geology. And it's interesting that instead of, say, reading about the reasons why the earth's magnetic field is not decaying, both Russ and CTD claim in so many words that it's simply all lies.
Its nothing more than some anonymous blogger's assertion. I have asserted that evodates are bogus. What makes this dopey assertion better than mine? It leads away from the truth, that's what.
I'll have a guess: neither of you bothered to actually read the Talk Origins article because . . . it's all lies. So are you going to take the OP here at face value simply because it says what you want, even though you don't know the methodology behind it?
The methodology is quite simple: assume uniformitarianism is true, and start taking measurements. Anyone can do it.
Is "Morris says so, therefore it must be true" what you honestly believe?
Neither of us have said anything of the sort. You, on the other hand, have presented "evidence" consisting of a simple assertion made by some God-hating blogger, and went on about how impressive it is, and how we should accept it. Do you even know this clown, or is any silly assertion which is contrary to evidence and sound reason just to be accepted because you like it?
For my part, there's not much left for me to discuss here.
There's certainly not much chance you'll make progress. Only those who already oppose truth as a matter of policy have any chance to be "convinced" by the junk you submit.
I noticed silly statements like the methane on Titan (a moon of Saturn) "proving" that the universe is young.
Do you think Titan is significantly younger than the Earth?
TitanEnergy from the Sun should have converted all traces of methane in Titan's atmosphere into more complex hydrocarbons within 50 million years; a relatively short time compared to the age of the Solar System. This suggests that methane must be somehow replenished by a reservoir on or within Titan itself. That Titan's atmosphere contains over a thousand times more methane than carbon monoxide would appear to rule out significant contributions from cometary impacts, since comets are composed of more carbon monoxide than methane. That Titan might have accreted an atmosphere from the early Saturnian nebula at the time of formation also seems unlikely; in such a case, it ought to have atmospheric abundances similar to the solar nebula, including hydrogen and neon.[34] Many astronomers have suggested that the ultimate origin for the methane in Titan's atmosphere is from within Titan itself, released via eruptions from cryovolcanoes.[35] A possible biological origin for the methane has not been discounted (see below).[10]
There is also methane on Mars (though not as much), which has led to similar speculations as above.
When observations run contrary to desire, people tend to speculate. I'm surprised to see you categorize speculation as speculation. Don't feel bad. We all make mistakes.
Now what do you think is the more scientific approach?
a) The methane on these bodies should have disappeared long ago, so there is a source replenishing it, which could lead to interesting discoveries.
b) The methane on these bodies should have disappeared long ago. Therefore the universe and the earth are young, therefore evolution didn't happen and the Bible is literally true.
Should we base conclusions on observations or wishes? Since you advocate blind faith in wishing, I take your use of 'scientific' to be in keeping with the tradition of employing 'science' as an euphemism for atheism. Real science bases conclusions upon what is observed.
You also play the old "don't investigate" strawman card. Show me a real creation scientist who is opposed to investigation, if you can. I'd love to see Titan investigated just so we can hear even more entertaining fantasies. Evolutionism fails more and more miserably with every new fact that's discovered. The religion has a history of leveraging ignorance. "Junk DNA", "vestigial organs", and so many more things we'd need a new thread to properly catalog and discuss them.
And for those who don't already know, a thorough job of debunking talkdeceptions has already been done. I'm not into wasting time, and I'm not into pretending jobs haven't been done when they have.
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=25268#Post25268Also see
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=35939#Post35939The uniformitarian assumption set fails. Everybody knows it. Things change. That's kinda how we know time passes in the first place. If there were no sequential events, one could argue there was no such thing as time. There are, therefore there is, and there's no way around it.
