Christianity Vs. Evolution
I mixed up the day that I left for vacation, hence the missed post. Since I returned a few days ago, IÃÂve had a lot to do, and I leave again tomorrow. I wanted to a least post something on the electromagnetic field, as it is long overdue.
Electromagnetic field ÃÂ Now that I have read a little (very little) on the subject, what was the cause of the decay in the electromagnetic field? The impression I got was the field is created by electric charges and currents. Thus IÃÂm not sure what would cause uniform decay except perhaps coincidence. There could of course be some other factor that I am not aware of. Why does decay within the past few years suggest that the Earth is young? If it is because you assume relatively constant decay, what suggests relatively constant decay? The problem now is that to address your arguments, I need to know precisely what they are.
I will respond to your last post later, as it is approaching 1 AM where I live.
Stu Inundation and Quartzites ÃÂ For your model to be plausible, you have to provide a mechanism for an extremely large amount of water to flow OVER the Rocky Mountains source area, and then drag the quartzites up to 1000km eastward. Even if the continent WAS under water, you still have to find a mechanism that will drag the quartzites 1000km underwater. To be honest I find any such a model absurd and fanciful. But maybe you will surprise me.
Global Flood ÃÂ The mechanism proposed by creationists is on a scale that would have inundated the entire globe. Any mechanism that is capable of explaining this phenomena would have global consequences. Probably the best evidence for a global flood is the computer simulation model ÃÂTERAÃÂ that is universally accepted to be the best in the world. This model was created by John Baumgardner of the Los Alamos laboratory, who is the foremost expert in plate tectonic modelling. The model shows the WHOLE process of the global flood, and the ÃÂcatastrophic plate tectonicÃÂ model has been shown to be much better than the standard plate tectonic model (which uses the same ÃÂTERRAÃÂ program, just with different input data). http://www.globalflood.org/platetec/about.html
I probably need to clarify my ÃÂchallengeÃÂ a bit. Not only do evolutionists need to show beneficial mutations, but they need to show that the mutation has GAINED genetic information or become more complex. If you want to demonstrate how a single celled organism can evolve into a human, you need to show INFORMATION GANING MUTATIONS! You simply CAN NOT change a single celled organism into a human with ONLY degenerating mutations! Obviously degenerative mutations would be part of the theory of evolution, but information gaining mutations are the major contributor. This is why, if the theory of evolution is to be taken seriously, information gaining/increased complexity, mutations HAVE to demonstrated.
The examples of increased bone density and bacterial resistance are only examples of degenerative mutations.
Bahleda The first thing is to distinguish between the two creationist models. You will almost always see on the net, rebuttals of Thomas Barnes model, but this model hasnÃÂt been held by creationists for some time. The model that creationists use is the ÃÂdynamic decayÃÂ model by Russell Humphreys. The main point about the uniformitarian model (the dynamo model) is the model has to maintain the current magnet field strength for 4.5 billion years. This is the main point where the creationist model differs, the creationist model states that the field has basically decayed consistently since the beginning.
This is where the evidence conclusively proves the creationist model. Ever since the earthÃÂs field (the bipolar field) has been measured, it has been shown to be decaying at a rate of decay, that when extrapolated back in time, can be calculated that the maximum strength was about 6000 years ago (which is when creationists believe the earth was created). Uniformitarians can not except that the field is decreasing because they have to maintain that the earths field strength has remained the basically same for 4.5 billion years. So they commonly assert that any LOSS in bipolar strength is balanced by an INCREASE in non-bipolar strength. But studies have CONCLUSIVELY shown that the GROSS strength has decreased, so there is no balance at all. Even worse is the fact that there is very little increase in the non-bipolar field. Another common claim by uniformitarians is that the earth is currently undergoing a field reversal, which would explain the observed decreasing strength. By for this to be true any loss in strength HAS to be stored somewhere in the earth (some say in non-bipolar fields, but as IÃÂve shown, this is false) so that the field can regain that original ÃÂlostÃÂ energy to return to its original strength. But there is no place for that energy to ÃÂhideÃÂ during a reversal, we would have seen it. So it has been conclusively shown that the WHOLE field is decaying at a rate that would be expected from a 6000 year old earth.
But things get worse for the dynamo theory; there is evidence that shows that rapid magnetic field reversals have occurred. Some of these reversals have happened in a matter of hours. The creationist model (dynamic decay) explains these rapid reversals very well, whereas the uniformitarian model (dynamo) can not account for rapid reversals at all. The dynamic decay model states that during the global flood there were rapid reversals that were recorded in rapidly cooling lava. The dynamo model on the other hand states that all field reversals happen slowly over tens of thousands of years, and one reversal will only happen at a minimum of every 100,000 years. The mathematics of the model can not explain these rapid reversals.
The dynamic decay model also explains planetary magnetism much better than the dynamo, but we can discuss planetary magnetism later.
Inundation and Quartzites - the Rocky Mountains are fairly young in geological terms - dating from the Laramide orogeny 70 to 80 million years ago. Is there any evidence to suggest that they were at the top of a mountain range when transported? Or is it possible that they could have been moved before the mountains were formed?
I don't see why a non-global flood could not do everything you suggest a global flood could do without covering the globe. I'm still unsure how you are differentiating between evidence for a large but non-global flood, and a global one. As I've said, the fact that there is no global sediment layer is quite a problem for a global flood theory.
As an example of a large flood which has been in the news recently, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6904675.stm
I don't have time to look at the TERA model, but from what you say they get different answers using different input data. Of course you'll get different results if you do this! The question is whether the input data is backed up by measurements. Without looking at it in detail, I've no idea what input the models use, but it would be helpful to explain the differences between the normal tectonic model inputs and the creationist ones, and why the different inputs were chosen.
Evolution: You are consistently misinterpreting what evolution is. Evolution is a change - it does NOT have to be an increase in information! Besides the fact I've already quoted examples of genetic increases in information, your "devolution" is evolution by the scientific definition. As you appear to believe in "devolution", you therefore believe in evolution (using the scientific definition). Maybe you don't believe in the creationist definition of "evolution", but you do the scientific one.
To solve this apparent problem, how exactly do creationists define "information"? Without a definition the creationists can merely claim that any evolutionary adaptation is merely "devolution" (although, as I pointed out, this is still evolution).
If we define it as the ability to do something which the species previously did not be able to do, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6896753.stm
P.S. In your message to Bahleda you state that the standard theory cannot explain rapid field reversals. This is not true. They can be localised fluctuations in the surface field.
Stu Inundation and Quartzites ÃÂ Due to the massive amounts of quartzites removed from the source area, I would expect that erosion ÃÂscalpingÃÂ the top of the mountain range is the only way to remove the observed amount of displaced quartzites. If the topography was flat, far less quartzites would be removed. Also, a flat topography would severely reduce the flow of water, as apposed to the large energy of water running off of a mountain range.
The example you mentioned is woefully inadequate to account of the example of flood transported quartzites; The flow of quartzites was about 500km wide, to over 1000km long. This means that the flow of water HAS to be 500km wide!!! There is simply no other mechanism that can account for a flow of water this large.
Evolution ÃÂ Your argument on this topic is typical of most evolutionists ÃÂ ignore the mechanism for evolution. In order to advance this further, please answer this one question; DO YOU BELIEVE THAT A SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM CAN EVOLVE INTO A HUMAN WITH ONLY DEGENERATIVE MUTATIONS ONLY? This is a fundamental question. You canÃÂt seriously assert that ONLY deletions and degenerations to a genome can produce a ÃÂhigherÃÂ and more advanced organism.
Where are these examples of information increasing mutations? All that I can remember is the ÃÂbacterial resistanceÃÂ example, and this can, and has been, shown to be degenerations only.
In regards to the claim of evolution in the ÃÂblue-moon butterflyÃÂ, this quote from the bottom of the same web page should clear things up. ÃÂThe researchers are not sure whether the gene that suppressed the parasite emerged from a mutation in the local population or whether it was introduced by migratory Southeast Asian butterflies in which the mutation already existed.ÃÂ So you see, there is no evidence WHAT-SO-EVER that any evolution has occurred at all, just natural selection and WISHFUL THINKING.
Magnetic Field ÃÂ Do you have any source for the ÃÂlocalized fluctuationÃÂ claim? Is this related to non-bipolar fields?