harakiri:

Can you please answer the questions on page one as reasonably as you can? Go straight to the point and leave out all the small talk/sentiments.

Thanks.

harakiri:

Abeg helep me tell am ooo. . .

I asked simple and straight forward questions that demand sincere and direct answers but instead, he's flooding the thread with unrelated articles.I no fit shout.

common be mature. . .Those things u call "contradiction" ain't nothing 2 even 2 1year old christian,so don't think its a tough nut 2 crack.I initially did not take notice of the questions since I thought it was just one of d numerous threads opened by ur fellows,not until I re-read d whole thing.By the way,u still asked more questions which I obliged.I've got other things doing in d "real world",and since its not something I can just rush over,I'll be back 2 clear ur doubts when I'm done with 2days activity

philip0906:

common be mature. . .Those things u call "contradiction" ain't nothing 2 even 2 1year old christian,so don't think its a tough nut 2 crack.I initially did not take notice of the questions since I thought it was just one of d numerous threads opened by your fellows,not until I re-read d whole thing.By the way,u still asked more questions which I obliged.I've got other things doing in d "real world",and since its not something I can just rush over,I'll be back 2 clear your doubts when I'm done with 2days activity

Guy why are you running away from Questions? are you trying to tell us that you dont understand your religion or you are confuse about your so call religion? Shame on you Philip there are still time to choose the right part and true religion. simple advice

lol@ this question. The question should have been does God actually exist regardless of religion? The basic concept of any religion is faith. What is faith? Faith is the building block of all religion. Believing that God or any supernatural being exist without empirical or testable evidence. People voluntarily chose to be either Muslims or Christians, Hindu, etc because they have faith that their belief is the ultimate value without any proof. All religions exist by faith alone. When people start asking testable or empirical question on religions which are based on faith then they will always get disappointed by the answers. The point is you are not going to sway anyone to see your point of view or your belief by providing evidence to back up your view because people practicing those religions are not practicing their belief because of empirical evidence. It's all faith.

Anyway, good luck to you guys.

(1)According to the history of the bible (from Adam till the present day), the world is not older than 5000 years and yet, there are archaeological findings dating back to millions and even billions of years back.There is no mention of ancient civilizations, dinosaurs or prehistoric plant life.All that was mentioned are what we see around us today.Could you explain this discrepancy?

If I understand your question,u want me 2 prove dat d world is indeed 6000years old
Proof 1: Comets constantly lose their material until they are gone. Ask any scientist, the life expectancy of a comet is less than 10,000 years old. If the universe was billions of years old than all comets would have been long gone by now.

Proof 2: Stars blow up about every 30 years, but there are less than 300 super novas (dead stars) in existence. If the Earth was 4.5 billion years old, there would be hundreds of millions of them.

Proof 3: Jupiter is cooling off rapidly, losing heat constantly. It would be very cold by now if it were billions of years old, yet it is still hot.

Proof 4: Galaxies spin but the stars in the middle spin faster than those on the outside, yet there are still spiral arms on the galaxies – proof that they are only about 6,000 years old.

Proof 5: Saturn’s rings are expanding and unstable, they cannot be billions of years old.

Proof 6: The moon gets farther away from the Earth by a few inches each year. It causes the tides which would have made life impossible on Earth not much more than 6,000 years ago. Only 1.4 billion years ago the moon would have been colliding with the Earth.

Proof 7: The Earth’s magnet has lost 10% of its strength in the last 150 years and 40% of it in the last 1,000 years. This means that it cannot be more than 25,000 years old.

Proof 8: The Earth is spinning at a rate of about 1,000 miles an hour at the equator but it slows down about 1/1000th of a second every day. We need a “leap second” every year to a year and a half to account for this. If dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago than they would have been obliterated by 5,000 mile per hour winds. If the Earth was billions of years old than it would have stopped spinning by now and reversely it would have already been flattened like a pancake from the centrifugal force billions of years ago.

Proof 9: The World’s oldest desert, the Sahara, is 4,000 years old (consistent with the fact that 4,400 years ago the Earth flooded). If the Earth was any older than 6,000 years than there would be much bigger and older deserts.

Proof 10: The World’s oldest tree is 4,300 years old – if the world was billions of years old then why aren’t there much older trees?

Proof 11: The Great Barrier Reef is 4,200 years old – according to the age of the Earth in modern textbooks there should be much larger and older coral reefs.

Proof 12: Rock cannot hold the pressure of oil for more than 10,000 years.

Proof 13: Thousands of petrified trees connecting layers of “sedimentary rocks” are found everywhere on Earth, debunking the theory that one layer is older than another. Rather, the layers were formed in the flood.

Proof 14: At the current rate of erosion the continents would erode flat in 14 million years. How then can we have rocks that are supposedly 300 times older than that still above sea level?

Proof 15: The World’s oldest written language is about 5,200 years old.

Proof 16: Each year water and winds erode 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean, which then accumulate as mud on the ocean floor. At this rate the average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean would be 60-100 miles deep if the Earth was 4.5 billion years old but the present amount of mud is only about four thousand feet, consistent with the fact that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Proof 17: Each year rivers dump 450 million tons of sodium in the ocean. At this rate, if it started with no sodium, at its present levels the ocean could possibly be no more than 42 million years old. Noah’s flood accounts for the higher than expected levels of sodium.

Proof 18: Today the Earth’s population doubles every 50 years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and started with one couple it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today’s population. There were only eight people on Noah’s ark.

Proof 19: The sun is shrinking at a rate of five feet per hour and that rate is slowing down – in the past the sun burned faster. At this rate it would have been twice its radius just one million years ago and touching the Earth just 20 million years ago. The idea that dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago is absurd.

Proof 20: Scientists agree that it takes 300 to 1,000 years to build one inch of topsoil, yet the average depth of topsoil on Earth is only about eight inches.

Proof 21: Meteoroids bombarding Saturn’s rings would have destroyed them far less than 20,000 years old.

Proof 22: Trillions of particles in Saturn’s rings are mainly solid ammonia. Because of its high vapor pressure, it could not survive more than 10,000 years without vaporizing into outer space.

Proof 23: Ultraviolet light changes moon rocks into dust. If it was 4 billion years old than there would be a 20-60 mile deep layer of dust on the moon (as was predicted for many years by “scientists”) yet it was recently discovered that there was only two to three inches (indicating a 6,000 year old moon).

Proof 24: Comets are primarily composed of water. So many small comets strike the earth that, if our planet were billions of years old, our land would be covered over with water many miles deep.

Proof 25: The Earth’s magnetic field is slowly lessening. 7,000 years ago the Earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger. Only 20,000 years ago the heat would have been strong enough to liquefy the planet.

There is no mention of ancient civilizations, dinosaurs or prehistoric plant life.

Diosaurs are mentioned in the Bible.These three are (in the original Hebrew language) tanniyn, bahemowth (yes, it’s spelled correctly—at least as close as we can get in Roman characters), and livyathan.

Although we alter the spelling of behemoth and Leviathan slightly, we still use those same words in bibles today. However, tanniyn is always translated into another word when we write it in English. Tanniyn occurs 28 times in the Bible and is normally translated “dragon.” It is also translated “serpent,” “sea monster,” “dinosaur,” “great creature,” and “reptile.” Behemoth and Leviathan are relatively specific creatures, perhaps each was a single kind of animal.Infact Job40:15-24,Job41,psalm104:25,26,Isaiah27:1 give a vivid description on the animal

(2)In the book of Genesis, Cain killed Abel out of jealousy.He was exiled from Eden and he went to the land of Nod and married there.Can you explain who those people were coz from my recollection, at that time it was just Adam,Eve and two kids.So who are these people that were "omitted" in the story and who is this mysterious woman Cain married? Was it his sister? Or did he get married to animals?

Cain was the first child of Adam and Eve recorded in Scripture (Genesis 4:1). His brothers, Abel (Genesis 4:2) and Seth (Genesis 4:25), were part of the first generation of children ever born on this earth.Even though only these three males are mentioned by name, Adam and Eve had other children. In Genesis 5:4 a statement sums up the life of Adam and Eve—“And the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were eight hundred years. And he fathered sons and daughters.” This does not say when they were born. Many could have been born in the 130 years (Genesis 5:3) before Seth was born.During their lives, Adam and Eve had a number of male and female children. The Jewish historian Josephus wrote that, “The number of Adam's children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.”
The Bible does not tell us how many children were born to Adam and Eve. However, considering their long life spans (Adam lived for 930 years—Genesis 5:5), it would seem reasonable to suggest there were many! Remember, They were commanded to “Be fruitful, and multiply” (Genesis 1:28).
The wife
   If we now work totally from Scripture, without any personal prejudices or other extra-biblical ideas, then back at the beginning, when there was only the first generation, brothers would have had to have married sisters or there would be no more generations!We are not told when Cain married or any of the details of other marriages and children, but we can say for certain that some brothers had to marry their sisters at the beginning of human history.
But you might now ask,what about God's Laws?
   Many people immediately reject the conclusion that Adam and Eve's sons and daughters married each other by appealing to the law against brother-sister intermarriage. Some say that you cannot marry your relation. Actually, if you don't marry your relation, you don't marry a human! A wife is related to her husband even before they marry because all people are descendants of Adam and Eve—all are of “one blood.” The law forbidding marriage between close relatives was not given until the time of Moses (Leviticus 18-20). Provided marriage was one man to one woman for life (based on Genesis 1 and 2), there was no disobedience to God's law originally when close relatives (even brothers and sisters) married each other.

Remember that Abraham married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12). God blessed this union to produce the Hebrew people through Isaac and Jacob. It was not until some 400 years later that God gave Moses laws that forbade such marriages.


Today, brothers and sisters (and half-brothers and half-sisters, etc.) are not permitted by law to marry because their children have an unacceptably high risk of being deformed. The more closely the parents are related, the more likely it is that any offspring will be deformed.

There is a very sound genetic reason for such laws that is easy to understand. Every person has two sets of genes, there being some 130,000 pairs that specify how a person is put together and functions. Each person inherits one gene of each pair from each parent. Unfortunately, genes today contain many mistakes (because of sin and the Curse), and these mistakes show up in a variety of ways. For instance, some people let their hair grow over their ears to hide the fact that one ear is lower than the other—or perhaps someone's nose is not quite in the middle of his or her face, or someone's jaw is a little out of shape—and so on. Let's face it, the main reason we call each other normal is because of our common agreement to do so!

The more distantly related parents are, the more likely it is that they will have different mistakes in their genes. Children, inheriting one set of genes from each parent, are likely to end up with pairs of genes containing a maximum of one bad gene in each pair. The good gene tends to override the bad so that a deformity (a serious one, anyway) does not occur. Instead of having totally deformed ears, for instance, a person may only have crooked ones! (Overall, though, the human race is slowly degenerating as mistakes accumulate, generation after generation.)

However, the more closely related two people are, the more likely it is that they will have similar mistakes in their genes, since these have been inherited from the same parents. Therefore, a brother and a sister are more likely to have similar mistakes in their genes. A child of a union between such siblings could inherit the same bad gene on the same gene pair from both, resulting in two bad copies of the gene and serious defects.
   Adam and Eve did not have accumulated genetic mistakes. When the first two people were created, they were physically perfect. Everything God made was “very good” (Genesis 1:31), so their genes were perfect—no mistakes! But, when sin entered the world (because of Adam—Genesis 3:6, Romans 5:12), God cursed the world so that the perfect creation then began to degenerate, that is, suffer death and decay (Romans 8:22). Over thousands of years, this degeneration has produced all sorts of genetic mistakes in living things.
  Cain was in the first generation of children ever born. He (as well as his brothers and sisters) would have have received virtually no imperfect genes from Adam or Eve, since the effects of sin and the Curse would have been minimal to start with (it takes time for these copying errors to accumulate). In that situation, brother and sister could have married with God's approval, without any potential to produce deformed offspring.
  By the time of Moses (a few thousand years later), degenerative mistakes would have built up in the human race to such an extent that it was necessary for God to forbid brother-sister (and close relative) marriage (Leviticus 18-20).[12] (Also, there were plenty of people on the earth by then, and there was no reason for close relations to marry.)
   Some claim that the passage in Genesis 4:16-17 means that Cain went to the land of Nod and found a wife. Thus, they can conclude there must have been another race of people on the earth, who were not descendants of Adam, who produced Cain's wife.
   “And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bore Enoch: and he built a city, and he called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.”
From what has been stated previously, it is clear that all humans, Cain's wife included, are descendants of Adam. However, this passage does not say that Cain went to the land of Nod and found a wife.

(3)In the same bible, the lord was angry with the world he created and was determined to destroy his creation (how ironic ).He instructed Noah to build an arc and put pairs of all living things in that ark.To the best of my knowledge, botanists spend their entire lives collecting and identifying species of a particular organism/animal/plant.Even if he lived 2,000 years on earth, there was no way he could have been able to achieve such a feat coz there were no airplanes,buses or ships to travel across the globe to get all pairs of organisms.Are we trying to say he came down to Africa to get the African elephant and then trekked back to India to get the Indian elephant? Think about it and you'll see how ridiculous it sounds.No roads.No buses.No planes.No ships.No rockets.No internet and yet. . .

That is y,when u read d Bible,read it with ur eyes wide open,mind open not 2 look 4 things u assume 2 be mistakes. . .
Genesis6:20 "Of fowls after their kind and cattle after their kind,of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind,two of every sort shall come unto thee,to keep them alive"
Did u c that part?Noah did not go looking 4 animals,but God apparently caused the animals to come unto him.The Bible does not state how this was done.We also do not know what the geography of the world was like before the flood. If there was only one continent at that time, then questions of getting animals from remote regions to the ark are not relevant.

(4)The current bible used in Christianity today has two parts. . .the old and new testament.Now there are practices in the old testament that most churches especially Pentecostals have discontinued e.g eye for an eye, sacrificial offerings and so on.When you ask them, they tell you that Christ came and all things are washed away rendering the old testament null and void.If this is true, why then do they still revert to Malachi 3:10 when it comes to psyching up the congregation to give more offerings and tithes? Weren't all things of old washed away? The same people will tell you that no part of the bible is irrelevant and the same people choose the parts that suit them.Are they confused about who and what they are worshiping?Do they even have an idea of what they are doing?

First you have 2 now,dat both d old and new testament,compliment each other. God's laws are designed to guide all people toward life-styles that are healthy, upright, and devoted to God. Their purpose was to point out sin (or potential sin) and show the proper way to deal with that sin. The Ten Commandments, the heart of God's law, are just as applicable today as they were 3,000 years ago because they proclaim a life-style endorsed by God. They are the perfect expression of who God is and how he wants people to live.God never issued a law that didn't have a purpose. However, many of the laws we read in the Pentateuch were directed specifically to people of that time and culture. Although a specific law may not apply to us, the timeless truth or principle behind the law does.For example, Christians do not practice animal sacrifice in worship. However, the principles behind the sacrifices--forgiveness for sin and thankfulness to God--still apply. The sacrifices pointed to the ultimate sacrifice made for us by Jesus Christ. The New Testament says that with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ the Old Testament laws were fulfilled. This means that while the Old Testament laws help us recognize our sins and correct our wrongdoings, it is Jesus Christ who takes our sins away. Jesus is now our primary example to follow because he alone perfectly obeyed the law and modeled its true intent.In the Old Testament, there were three categories of law: ceremonial, civil, and moral.
   (1) The ceremonial law related specifically to Israel's worship (see Leviticus 1:2, 3, for example). Its primary purpose was to point forward to Jesus Christ; these laws, therefore, were no longer necessary after Jesus' death and resurrection. While we are no longer bound by ceremonial law, the principles behind them--to worship and love a holy God--still apply. Jesus was often accused by the Pharisees of violating ceremonial law.

(2) The civil law applied to daily living in Israel (see Deuteronomy 24:10, 11, for example). Because modern society and culture are so radically different from that time and setting, all of these guidelines cannot be followed specifically. But the principles behind the commands are timeless and should guide our conduct. Jesus demonstrated these principles by example.

(3) The moral law (such as the Ten Commandments) is the direct command of God, and it requires strict obedience (see Exodus 20:13, for example). The moral law reveals the nature and will of God, and it still applies today. Jesus obeyed the moral law completely.
   Christ fulfilled the law and released us from its burden of guilt. But the law still teaches many valuable principles and provides guidelines for grateful living. Paul was not observing the laws in order to be saved. He was simply keeping the laws as custom to avoid offending those he wished to reach with the Good News.
   Moreover,many new testament writers,made reference to old testament prophets who came before them.So they did not discard the writings of the old testament prophets,instead even Hebrew uses d lives of these Saints,to help guide us Christians.
     

If this is true, why then do they still revert to Malachi 3:10 when it comes to psyching up the congregation to give more offerings and tithes? Weren't all things of old washed away?

Like I said,they all compliment each other.The fact that this is the old testament,does not mean giving in the new testament has been abolished.Infact,there r passages in the new testament that encourage giving. First of all, keep in mind that when God makes a law in the Old Testament that you’ve got to ask a few questions.  Was it a ceremonial law?  The ceremonial laws were built around the Sanctuary and the Temple during the Exodus.  Many of those laws were nailed to the Cross.  We don’t need to sacrifice lambs anymore.  We don’t need a literal priesthood because we are all priests.  We’re a kingdom of priests.  But Tithe, the principle of Tithe goes back to the very beginning.  You look at Abraham and it says that Abraham – he paid Tithe.  Jacob paid Tithe.  That goes back pretty far.

And then Paul in the New Testament – he talks about Tithe; and he never says that it’s done away with.  There’s no New Testament writer that says we no longer pay Tithe.  Jesus, speaking of Tithe, it’s sort of a secondary answer but He does really give us an answer.  In Matthew 23:23, He says woe to you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you pay Tithe of the mint and anise and cumin (those are herbs in their garden) but you’ve omitted the weightier matters, justice, mercy and faith.  Then He goes on to say these you ought to have done, and not leave the other undone.  Well the other was Tithe.  He says I’m not saying don’t pay Tithe, but don’t forget about justice, mercy and faith.  So it’s interesting.  Christ really answered the question on Tithe in that statement – He says do not leave the other undone.
  "Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel" (1 Cor:13-14).  Here Paul is restating the principle in the Old Testament that those who are ministers are to live by the funds that are paid into the Church. The offerings were to pay the expenses of the Church and the Tithe was to pay the wages of the ministers.  The Priests of the Old Testament are the Ministers of the new.
  1co16:2 "Upon the first day of the week,let everyone of you lay by him in store,as God has prospered him,that there be no gatherings when I come". . .This particular passage,is where many New testament believers draw theirs from.Thats y if u go 2 churches every sunday,giving is part of the fellowship.
  Since it is not spiritual matter we r talking of here,I would have given u loads of passages(New testament) passages,dat encourages giving and Blessings that follow giving.Thats y,in my church,u give if u like,if u don't want 2,its your problem.No one is coerced into giving,but sure those that give,including me,have been blessed.I know many rich men,who aren't complete christians,but read d Bible and make giving a part of their lives.

(6)The people who brought us Christianity also brought guns,liquor and slave trade (i don't know about you but that doesn't sound "holy-like" to me).They superimposed their religion on the black folks as a means of control.The same people who brought us their religion don't take it as serious as we do

I wonder where you got this information from.This is very eronous.Go and read about the slave trade well.So every white man that came 4rm d western world came with the Bible?What about those white men who specifically came 2 preach the gospel and opposed slave trade?what about those ,who gave their lives 2 c dat slave trade is abolished?If u don't have idea of any,I'll put 'em up 4 u here.

I might be wrong but Nigeria to the best of my knowledge is the most prayerful/religious country in the world (there is hardly any street in Lagos without at least 2 churches or fellowships) and yet, with all the abundance of religion, we are the most cold hearted people to our fellow human beings!

Don't mix things up here,cos u r now bringing different things together dat differ 4rm d objective of this thread which is to prove d existence of d "christian God",u r now generalising(religion).If Nigeria is d most religious country in d world,is it only Christianity dat makes up Nigeria?Only if u were specific enough.Moreso,Nigeria ain't d most religious country in d world.U r now bringing sentiments.
Now,d fact that there is a proliferation of churches everywhere,does not in any way,undermine Christianity.Even d Bible,foresaw it and instead warned that we be wise,avoid false prophets even in our midst.Jesus specifically said,"Not everyone dat calls me Lord. . .".So not everyone dat says,I'm a christian,is actually is.THAT IS Y WE HAVE D BIBLE.The Bible is d guideline and standard for every christian and not the church.There r many dat hide under d banner of "christianity" 2 perpetrate evil.Many who say they r "Christians" don't even know d bible and blatantly disregard d Bible's instructions.U can bear witness 2 dat.But I can assure u,in d midst of all these,there r men who have,are and will stand for d Truth.Those r d people we r supposed 2 look up 2.There r lots of fake doctors every where in Nigeria,fake drugs is now the order of d day,but there r still doctors who uphold their integrity and it does not stop us 4rm taking medicine and seeing a doctor.
   

Christianity as we know it today originated from the Catholic church whose practices are chiefly unorthodox or in plain English. . .idol worship (how else can you explain worshiping a graven image of Mary, praying to saints,kissing the rings and feet of priests and the rosary. . .all of which aren't mentioned in the bible)

correction,Christianity did not originate in d Catholic church,it originated right 4rm d Bible days.Acts11:26 ". . .and they were first called christians in antioch".Moreso,u can read up this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity
  Like u said,kissing of d rings and feet of priests and rosary,ain't in d Bible.So u affirm 2 dat.God bless u

Christians all claim to be worshiping one god. . .why then can't a Christ Embassy worshiper spend a few Sundays at Celestial Church of Christ? Why can't a C.A.C Pastor minister in Assemblies of God? Why can't Winners Chapel members worship in K&S? Or are there different gods? Are the so called Christians confused? Please explain these few questions satisfactorily and i'll hold my peace.

I don't worship a god,I worship  God.I could have ignored this question cos of dat,but let me help u.We should not be carried away by the names of different churches,cos many of these churches differ in names,but have "one doctrine" which they derive 4rm d Bible.WE have 36 states with different names but we r a country.We have one passport,one army e.t.c so it is in d "true church".
  Now,the governor of Lagos state won't leave his state and go and govern in neighbouring Ogun state b'cos we r one country.All these is for "orgaizational" purposes.So it is in d church,there is organisation in d church.Even in d internal church,say Redeemed Church,d Pastor of a branch,does not leave his and go 2 d branch of another redeemed Church,just like a L.g chairman won't leave his L.G and go and supervise another L.G.
Nevertheless,there are numerous cases where ministers of different churches go 2 other churches 2 preach.Now let me be practical,some years back,Pastor Kumuyi was invited 2 d celestial church of Christ 2 preach and he obliged.Last year or so,he was in redeemed camp where he gave a message.He has also been invited 2 other churches in d U.S.A,Sweden and U.K,to preach in other churches.same happens with other ministers 2.We have d CAN(christian association of Nigeria),that brings these churches 2gether,and when crusades r organised,they all participate.So,all these churches dat differ in name(I mean d true Gospel churches dat stand 4 d truth) r just members of a larger church which is in Christ Jesus.

(5)The god in the bible is referred to as the all knowing god. . .the omni potent, omni present and all that. If he is all these, then he should have known that Eve would be tempted by the serpent and she would fall.He should have known how his creation would go till this present day.Why then did he create man when he knew that failure was imminent? The bible says he destroyed the world once and will do it again (some call it rapture, others call it Armageddon, a few think it's both ways). Why create something and condemn it? Is the bible implying that god is confused? That he makes errors? Isn't he supposed to be the all knowing god? Explain this please.

Genesis1:26 "And God said,let us make man in our own image,after our likeness. . ."
This passage should be d bedrock 4 this kind of "arguement".We humans were created in God's image and not like animals.we r a special creation of God.Adam and Eve had a natural likeness to God.They were created personal beings with spirit,mind,emotions,self-consciousness and Power of choice.Now,it is this power of choice,dat made Adam and Eve eat the fruit in the garden of eden,when they had d choice 2 say no.
Man's free will had now interfered with God's pre-creation plan and purpose. God watched the fall of man take place on the one hand and looked at His plan on the other. Did God rise up in anger and destroy what He created? No, He sent man out of the garden. What was God's intention in driving man from the garden? Was this because of His good pleasure? If so, why? It was His good pleasure to do so because He had a plan already in Himself and He would see it fulfilled no matter what man did. He sent man from the garden to preserve him, because in Adam and Eve were all those who would respond to Him when he revealed Himself in the flesh by His Son. It was and is God's purpose to have His Son as the center of all things and to be exalted over all things, and He is going to have that. Man's arrogance cannot hinder it or stop it:

Ephesians 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
God is certainly omnipotent and omniscient. That God has these attributes, however does not mean that God is a slave to those attributes. God is also a sovereign God. That means God can choose when and where and under what conditions to exercise His omnipotence and omniscience. God chose not to exercise direct control over Adam during the growing period in order to fulfill His purpose that Adam be given a responsibility for his own growth. This would enable Adam, if faithful, to grow to become a perfect loving being and one with the heart of God. God chose not to exercise His power of foreknowledge in that God had entered into a relationship of faith and entrustment with His children. God entrusted Adam and Eve with His word fully and therefore had no need to exert His omniscience to see whether or not they would fulfill. Remember God created them with d power of choice and not as animals put in a leash.When Adam sinned, therefore, it broke fully the entrustment that God had placed in them. God's grief (Gen. 6:6), is a genuine grief, not a symbolic one.
Many would now say,why then did God create us into this world of suffering.It would have been better if we hadn't been created.The question then is,how do you compare that ultimate good would be for God to never have created versus a life that faces pain and suffering? We cannot imagine if life would have been better, since there is quite literally nothing to compare.
-on one hand there’s pain and suffering with the ability to experience divine goodness
-and then there’s nothing.
who are we to say that one is better than the other, when we cannot experience the other.
How would I, if I did not exist, profit by not existing? we don’t have to figure out if it was better to not exist… we do exist, so we are left to figure out – If God is good and there’s evil in the world, how does this work? Which the solution could very well be free will. God cannot both give man free will and the inability to choose things that will cause them harm or pain.
and may i also add, that we would have experienced the fullness of God’s greatness had we not sinned. to say otherwise is to say that God wanted us to sin. would nullify everything that He has said about Himself.

philip0906:

If I understand your question,u want me 2 prove dat d world is indeed 6000years old

The earth is NOT 6000 years old, I have TOLD you to STOP visiting Christian apologist websites and copying RUBBISH. . . . .All the stuffs you copied and pasted have long been discredited, the person that wrote them(Kent Hovind) is NOT a scientist to begin with, he has a degree in mathematics from a non accredited university. . . . .

Proof 1: Comets constantly lose their material until they are gone. Ask any scientist, the life expectancy of a comet is less than 10,000 years old. If the universe was billions of years old than all comets would have been long gone by now.

This is FALSE, the life expectancy of comets is NOT 10,000 years old, if you know any astronomer that says so please bring him on. NO astronomer has ever said that comets are 10,000 years old. . . .Kent Hovind is NOT an astronomer, From science daily it says "There are long-period comets as well as for our short-period comets and each time a comet, which is akin to a dirty snowball, passes near the sun it loses tons of material to vaporization. Thus, the number of orbits such a comet can make before being reduced to a swarm of asteroids is limited. The solar wind along with the heat and light of the inner solar system are responsible for a comet's magnificent tail. Thus, comets brighten up as they near the sun, their tails pointing away from the sun. A few comets occasionally crash into one of the planets, especially Jupiter, or into the sun itself. Others are thrown out of the solar system forever.

In passing, let me point out that the projected life span of one short-period comet, that of Halley's comet, is 40,000 years (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.339). Thus, we can forget about Dr. Hovind's 10,000-year figure! "

Oort determined that comets tossed into highly elliptical orbits by Uranus and Neptune would be nudged into more nearly circular orbits by encounters with passing stars. Stellar encounters also would scatter comets above and below the ecliptic plane, creating a sphere of comets instead of a flattened disk. After four decades of refinements to Oort's original ideas, astronomers today believe the Oort Cloud extends from about 20,000 to 100,000 AU (almost 2 lightyears) from the Sun and contains as many as two trillion comets with a total mass several times Earth's.

(Benningfield, 1990, p.31)

Proof 2: Stars blow up about every 30 years, but there are less than 300 super novas (dead stars) in existence. If the Earth was 4.5 billion years old, there would be hundreds of millions of them.

I just cant believe this, did you read this NONSENSE before posting it here? What do you mean by stars blow up every 30 years?. . . . .

Proof 3: Jupiter is cooling off rapidly, losing heat constantly. It would be very cold by now if it were billions of years old, yet it is still hot.

"Jupiter is not cooling off that rapidly! Based on the fact that Jupiter is radiating twice as much energy as it receives from the Sun, and given its mass and other data, we can calculate the heat loss. "A simple calculation indicates that the average temperature of the interior of Jupiter falls by only about a millionth of a kelvin per year." (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.269). (A drop of one kelvin is equal to a drop of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit.) In short, Jupiter is big enough that it could still be radiating heat trapped during its formation 4.5 billion years ago. Thus, there's no problem there.

Saturn, which radiates almost three times more energy than it receives from the Sun, is a more complicated case as it is not massive enough to retain its primeval heat of formation 4.5 billion years ago.

The explanation for this strange state of affairs, first suggested by Ed Salpeter of Cornell and David Stevenson of Caltech, also explains the mystery of Saturn's apparent helium deficit, all in one neat package. At the temperatures and high pressures found in Jupiter's interior, liquid helium dissolves in liquid hydrogen. In Saturn, where the internal temperature is lower, the helium doesn't dissolve so easily, and tends to form droplets instead. The phenomenon is familiar to cooks who know that it is generally much easier to dissolve ingredients in hot liquids than in cold ones. Saturn probably started out with a fairly uniform mix of hydrogen and helium, but the helium tended to condense out of the surrounding hydrogen, much as water vapor condenses out of Earth's atmosphere to form a mist. The amount of helium condensation was greatest in the planet's cool outer layers, where the mist turned to rain about 2 billion years ago. A light shower of liquid helium has been falling through Saturn's interior ever since. This helium precipitation is responsible for depleting the outer layers of their helium content. , As the helium sinks toward the center, the planet's gravitational field compresses it and heats it up. [Saturn is a "gas giant," a planet without a surface. As the helium in the outer layers "rained" down into the lower levels it was squeezed into a smaller space due to gravity, which caused the helium atoms to bump into each other more often. That is, the helium heated up according to Boyle's law. - D.M.] "

(Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.288)

waiting. . .

Proof 4: Galaxies spin but the stars in the middle spin faster than those on the outside, yet there are still spiral arms on the galaxies – proof that they are only about 6,000 years old.

Is this a JOKE or what?. . . . . .

Proof 5: Saturn’s rings are expanding and unstable, they cannot be billions of years old.

"Dr. Hovind briefly indicates the nature of the above instability. Incredibly, he states that Saturn's rings are still spreading out according to particle size in keeping with the PoyntingRobertson effect! However, the PoyntingRobertson effect applies to fine dust in orbit around the Sun, not to particles in orbit around Saturn! Furthermore, most of the particles making up the rings of Saturn are the size of large snowballs much too large for the PoyntingRobertson effect (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.290)."

Kent Hovind does NOT know what he is saying. . . . . .

Proof 6: The moon gets farther away from the Earth by a few inches each year. It causes the tides which would have made life impossible on Earth not much more than 6,000 years ago. Only 1.4 billion years ago the moon would have been colliding with the Earth.

Dr. Hovind's figures just boggle the mind! Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Moon is receding at 6 inches per year. If we go back a million years, then the Moon was 6 million inches closer to the earth. That comes to about 95 miles! Since the Moon is about 240,000 miles away, that doesn't amount to diddlysquat! Indeed, the Moon has a slightly elliptical orbit that varies more than 95 miles all by itself.

A more accurate estimate, based on the present rate of lunar recession, puts the Moon within the Roche limit around 1 or 2 billion years ago. That is the argument most creationists use. (Since Dr. Hovind's notes match the figures he quoted in his debate with Dr. Hilpman, they are fair game and not a simple slip of the pen.)

The tides, chiefly caused by the Moon's gravitational attraction and the orbiting of Earth and Moon about a common point, act as a brake to slow down the earth's rotation. The nearer tidal bulge, which carries the greater effect, runs slightly out of alignment of the Moon overhead; the gravitational interaction between it and the Moon serves to speed up the Moon in its orbit even as it slows down the earth's rotation. As it speeds up, the Moon moves to a higher orbit.

The effectiveness of this tidal brake on the earth's rotation strongly depends on the configuration of the oceans. Thus, we should inquire as to whether the current arrangement is an average value or not.

   The present rate of tidal dissipation is anomalously high because the tidal force is close to a resonance in the response function of the oceans; a more realistic calculation shows that dissipation must have been much smaller in the past and that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was well outside the Roche limit, at a distance of at least thirtyeight earth radii (Hansen 1982; see also Finch 1982).

Saturn, which radiates almost three times more energy than it receives from the Sun, is a more complicated case as it is not massive enough to retain its primeval heat of formation 4.5 billion years ago.

still waiting. . .

Proof 7: The Earth’s magnet has lost 10% of its strength in the last 150 years and 40% of it in the last 1,000 years. This means that it cannot be more than 25,000 years old.

This one is FALSE too like all the others. . . . .

Proof 8: The Earth is spinning at a rate of about 1,000 miles an hour at the equator but it slows down about 1/1000th of a second every day. We need a “leap second” every year to a year and a half to account for this. If dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago than they would have been obliterated by 5,000 mile per hour winds. If the Earth was billions of years old than it would have stopped spinning by now and reversely it would have already been flattened like a pancake from the centrifugal force billions of years ago.

This is total BS, so wrong it's funny. The earth's rotation is slowing down, but only about 2.2 seconds every 100,000 years. That's 0.00000006 seconds a day.

Proof 9: The World’s oldest desert, the Sahara, is 4,000 years old (consistent with the fact that 4,400 years ago the Earth flooded). If the Earth was any older than 6,000 years than there would be much bigger and older deserts.

The present Sahara Desert really is only a few thousand years old. About 7 or 8 thousand years ago the area underwent a pronounced wet phase and portions of it were habitable parkland where cattle could be grazed (The Times Atlas of World History, 1978). More than 10,000 years ago, during the last glaciation, lakes and streams were present in the Sahara, and elephants, giraffes, and other animals roamed the grasslands and forests which covered much of the region. Not long ago radar was used to discover a fossil river which once flowed across the Sahara; the river bed is now buried beneath the desert sands. By the way, what does any of this have to do with the age of the earth?

Proof 10: The World’s oldest tree is 4,300 years old – if the world was billions of years old then why aren’t there much older trees?

What does the age of a tree have to do with the age of the earth? If, in fact, the oldest tree is 4300 years old, so what? Perhaps Dr. Hovind is impressed by the fact that such a tree would have sprouted at about the time Noah's flood ended. If that is the case, then it is time for a reality check.

It might interest you to know that trees go back at least 8000 years without being disturbed by Noah's flood! Dr. Charles Ferguson of the University of Arizona has, by matching up overlapping tree rings of living and dead bristlecone pines, carefully built a tree ring sequence going back to 6273 BC (Popular Science, November 1979, p.76). It turns out that such things as rainfall, floods, glacial activity, atmospheric pressure, volcanic activity, and even variations in nearby stream flows show up in the rings. We could add disease and excessive activity by pests to that list.

Different locations on the mountain also affect tree growth in that factors such as temperature, moisture, soil thickness, soil type, susceptibility to fire, susceptibility to wind, and the amount of sunlight received vary, sometimes dramatically. For example, a tree growing near a stream would be less susceptible to the effects of drought. Even the genetic inheritance of a tree plays a role in that it will magnify or retard the above factors. Thus, even trees on the same mountain, of the same species, don't always crossdate as nicely as one might think.

Proof 11: The Great Barrier Reef is 4,200 years old – according to the age of the Earth in modern textbooks there should be much larger and older coral reefs.

Meet the Capitan Reef:

http://www.nps.gov/gumo/naturescienc, formations.htm

Since there are very large and very much older reefs, well, you figure it out.

@Mazaje
b4 u continue ur solo run,did u c something I saw?I'm not a scientist but u could help me explain what u just posted

Saturn, which radiates almost three times more energy than it receives from the Sun, is a more complicated case as it is not massive enough to retain its primeval heat of formation 4.5 billion years ago.

Proof 12: Rock cannot hold the pressure of oil for more than 10,000 years.

Oil and gas also do a lot of migrating, and the oil accumulated in a given reservoir may have undergone a secondary migration from another reservoir.  Thus, a given pool of oil may or may not have been there millions and millions of years.  A recent geological shift in the rocks might also increase the leakage of an oil pool.  Thus, the mere existence of a leaky oil pool is not, in itself, sufficient proof that the oil had to be recently created.

The primary migration of oil from 1 to 5 kilometers deep in the earth, where it is produced under a combination of pressure and heat acting on organic matter, probably goes hand in hand with water migration.  The water is squeezed out as the sediments experience more and more pressure.  Thus, it may interest you to know how fast water migrates down there. Some idea of the extremely slow speed of fluid motion to be expected can be gained by considering the movement of ground water at shallow depths in dense clays, classed as "impermeable." Under a moderate hydraulic gradient and a reasonable value of permeability for clay, we come up with flow speeds of ground water on the order of 2 to 3 million years per kilometer [3.2 to 4.8 million years per mile]. Yet the permeability of source shales of petroleum is rated at only one-thousandth as great as for clays tested in the surface environment (Wszolek and Burlingame, 1987, p. 573).
(Strahler, 1987, p.237)

Thus, the primary migration of oil from its place of origin will take far longer than the mere 6000 years or so creationists allow for the age of the earth.  Creationists have tried to dance around that figure by quoting special cases of secondary migration or by simple smoke screen tactics, but the problem remains (Strahler, 1987, pp.237-238).

Proof 13: Thousands of petrified trees connecting layers of “sedimentary rocks” are found everywhere on Earth, debunking the theory that one layer is older than another. Rather, the layers were formed in the flood.

Proof 15: The World’s oldest written language is about 5,200 years old.

There are cave drawings that date to about 30,000 years ago. . . . .

philip0906:

@Mazaje
b4 u continue your solo run,did u c something I saw?I'm not a scientist but u could help me explain what u just posted

If only you can open your eyes very well, you'll see that what you quoted was part of the claim made by Kent Hovind( who is NOT even a scientist but went ahead and made those erroneous and misleading arguments) The claim was debunked and a better explanation was given right underneath it. . . .

mazaje:

If only you can open your eyes very well, you'll see that what you quoted was part of the claim made by Kent Hovind( who is NOT even a scientist but went ahead and made those erroneous and misleading arguments) The claim was debunked and a better explanation was given right underneath it. . . .

ok  I c. . .still waiting patiently,cos u'll soon run in2 a glitch

The present Sahara Desert really is only a few thousand years old. About 7 or 8 thousand years ago the area underwent a pronounced wet phase and portions of it were habitable parkland where cattle could be grazed (The Times Atlas of World History, 1978). More than 10,000 years ago, during the last glaciation, lakes and streams were present in the Sahara, and elephants, giraffes, and other animals roamed the grasslands and forests which covered much of the region. Not long ago radar was used to discover a fossil river which once flowed across the Sahara; the river bed is now buried beneath the desert sands. By the way, what does any of this have to do with the age of the earth?The present Sahara Desert really is only a few thousand years old. About 7 or 8 thousand years ago the area underwent a pronounced wet phase and portions of it were habitable parkland where cattle could be grazed (The Times Atlas of World History, 1978). More than 10,000 years ago, during the last glaciation, lakes and streams were present in the Sahara, and elephants, giraffes, and other animals roamed the grasslands and forests which covered much of the region. Not long ago radar was used to discover a fossil river which once flowed across the Sahara; the river bed is now buried beneath the desert sands. By the way, what does any of this have to do with the age of the earth?

U have answered urself in ur post. . .no matter how scientists try 2 add up,they'll still fall in d "thousand" range

Proof 19: The sun is shrinking at a rate of five feet per hour and that rate is slowing down – in the past the sun burned faster. At this rate it would have been twice its radius just one million years ago and touching the Earth just 20 million years ago. The idea that dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago is absurd.

This one is so funny. . . .Kent Hovind himself claimed on 7 January 2002 to have abandoned the Shrinking Sun Argument because of how ridiculous it is, The sun is not shrinking but expanding and getting brighter very slowly .Yet in February 2002 you could still find Hovind using the argument on his web site. . . . . .  .

philip0906:

U have answered urself in your post. . .no matter how scientists try 2 add up,they'll still fall in d "thousand" range

When it comes to science it will be better for you to allow scientist explain things for you even if they are wrong, Kent Hovind is NOT a scientist, he has never been one before, He is a lair ands a fraud. . . . . He is presently in prison serving a 10 years sentence for fraud as I am typing this, he has NEVER been a scientist and will never be. He himself has withdrawn some of his evidence for a young earth, some like the moon dust and isotopes on the moon because of how ridiculous they are. If you want to talk about science them use the theories of scientist that know what they are talking about not fraudsters like Kent Hovind that are NOT scientist. . . . .

mazaje:

When it comes to science it will be better for you to allow scientist explain things for you even if they are wrong, Kent Hovind is NOT a scientist, he has never been one before, He is a lair ands a fraud. . . . . He is presently in prison serving a 10 years sentence for fraud as I am typing this, he has NEVER been a scientist and will never be. He himself has withdrawn some of his evidence for a young earth, some like the moon dust and isotopes on the moon because of how ridiculous they are. If you want to talk about science them use the theories of scientist that know what they are talking about not fraudsters like Kent Hovind that are NOT scientist. . . . .

I hear u,but u skipped proof 17 and 18. . .told u u'll soon run into a glitch

Proof 18 is my favorite as no atheist or scientist has been able 2 supply us answers

This one is FALSE too like all the others. . . . .

The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.

Electrical resistance in the earth’s core wears down the electrical current which produces the earth’s magnetic field. That causes the field to lose energy rapidly.

The total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field (“dipole” and “non-dipole”) is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.

This proof simply shows that the world is indeed in the 6000 year range(backing up my proof18)
The earth's population also testifies of the earth's age. By taking the earth's present percent of population growth and taking into account the history of Earth's abnormalities and then by simply calculating backwards we should be able to get a bead on the age of our earth. In an article titled "Creation vs. Evolution" I found this following interesting calculation:
Today the population grows at 2% per year. If we set the population growth rate at just 0.5% per year, then total population reduces to zero at about 4500 years ago. If the first humans lived 1,000,000 years ago, then at this 0.5% growth rate, we would have 10^2100 (ten with 2100 zeroes following it) people right now. If the present population was a result of 1,000,000 years of human history, then several trillion people must have lived and died since the emergence of our species. Where are all the bones? And finally, if the population was sufficiently small until only recently, then how could a correspondingly infinitesimally small number of mutations have evolved the human race?

philip0906:

The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.

Electrical resistance in the earth’s core wears down the electrical current which produces the earth’s magnetic field. That causes the field to lose energy rapidly.

The total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field (“dipole” and “non-dipole”) is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.

This is a LIE. . . . .

Young-earth "proof" #11: Since the earth's magnetic field is decaying at an exponential rate, its strength would have been unrealistically high 25,000 years ago. Thus, Earth is less than 25,000 years old.

11. Dr. Hovind is almost certainly talking about Barnes's magnetic field argument (1973) or some echo of it. Henry Morris, himself, praised it as one of the best arguments for a young earth. In fact, it recommends itself as a classic study of creationist incompetence!

In 1971 Barnes took about 25 measurements of the earth's magnetic field strength (originally assembled by Keith McDonald and Robert Gunst (1967)) and fitted them to an exponential decay curve. He drew upon Sir Horace Lamb's 1883 paper as theoretical justification for this. Following the curve backwards in time, Barnes showed that 20,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been impossibly high. Thus, he concluded that the earth is much younger than 20,000 years.

There are several fatal errors in Barnes's work:

1. Barnes employs an obsolete model of the earth's interior.

Today, no one doing serious work on the earth's magnetic field envisions its source as a free electrical current in a spherical conductor (the earth's core) undergoing simple decay. Elsasser's dynamo theory is the only theory today which has survived.

According to Barnes, "In 1883 Sir Horace Lamb proved theoretically that the earth's magnetic field could be due to an original event (creation) from which it has been decaying ever since" [1973, p.viii]. This is not a correct description of Lamb's 1883 paper, which dealt only with electric currents and did not mention geomagnetism at all, (Brush, 1983, p.73)

Lamb's ideas on electric currents had simply been pressed into service to support Barnes's obsolete ideas about the origin of the earth's magnetic field.

In trying to discredit Elsasser's theory, Barnes quoted Cowling's theorem.

He cites Cowling's 1934 theorem that shows "that it is not possible for fluid motions to generate a magnetic field with axial symmetry (such as the dipole field of the earth)" (Barnes 1973, pp. 44-45). However, recent work shows that Cowling's theorem does not forbid a model with axially symmetric fluid motions generating a field with lower symmetry (Jacobs 1975, pp. 128-31), and, indeed, the earth's field does not have a pure dipole character, a fact that Barnes conveniently ignores. (Brush, 1983, p.76)

The dynamo theory has gained near-universal acceptance because it is the only proposed mechanism that can explain all the observed features of the Earth's magnetic field. In contrast, Barnes' hypothesis of a freely decaying field cannot explain the existence, configuration, movement, or changes in the nondipole field, the fluctuations in the dipole moment, the reversals in field polarity, or the documentation in the geologic record of the continued existence of the field for more than three billion years. (Dalrymple, 1992, p.17)

Point 1, all by itself, is fatal to Barnes's basic idea since it removes any serious reason for believing that the earth's magnetic field has been continuously decaying.

2. In using McDonald and Gunst's data, Barnes selects only the "dipole component" of the total magnetic field for analysis (Brush, 1983, p.73).

The dipole field is not an accurate measurement of the overall strength of the earth's magnetic field. The dipole field can decay even as the overall strength of the magnetic field remains the same!

, McDonald and Gunst state explicitly that "the magnetic dipole field is being driven destructively to smaller values by fluid motions which transform its magnetic energy into that of the near neighboring modes rather than expend it more directly as Joule heat" (1968, p.2057). In other words, the energy is being transferred from the dipole field to the quadrupole field and to higher moments rather than being dissipated as heat. This implies that the value of the dipole field could not have been much greater in the past, since it is limited by the total magnetic energy, which does not change very rapidly. (Brush, 1983, p.75)

Thus, we are not dealing with a simple decay. Energy is being shifted to other modes rather than being totally lost to the magnetic field. Might not a reverse shift in energy increase the dipole field at times?

There is some reason to believe that the dipole field reached a maximum around 1800 and that it was smaller in 1600 than in 1800 (Yukutake 1971, p.23). Other recent work also suggests that the dipole field has fluctuated on a fairly short time scale (Braginsky 1970; papers by J. C. Cain and others in Fisher et al. 1975). (Brush, 1983, p.77)

It seems that the dipole field has gone uphill at times!

Studies of the magnetic field as recorded in dated rocks and pottery have shown that the dipole moment actually fluctuates over periods of a few thousand years and that decreases in field intensity are eventually followed by increases. For example, the archaeomagnetic data show that the dipole field was about 20% weaker than the present field 6,500 years ago and about 45% stronger than the present field about 3000 years ago (McElhinny and Senanayake, 1982). (Dalrymple, 1992, p.16)

Quite clearly, the dipole field has increased at times!

Point 2, by itself, is fatal to Barnes's idea in that Barnes was not actually plotting a decline in total field strength. Evidence shows that the dipole field has increased in strength at times.

3. Based on his preconceptions of the earth's magnetic field, Barnes fits an exponential decay curve to the data.

Barnes is doing some circular reasoning here. The use of an exponential decay curve is tantamount to assuming that the earth is young; one must show that the decay curve arises from the data -- not assume it! Otherwise, one is guilty of assuming that which must be proven, of arguing in circles.

If you actually plot the data, as Brush has done (1983, p.74), it becomes quite clear that the data does not justify an exponential decay curve. To be sure, the data doesn't actually rule out an exponential decay curve, but that's not particularly helpful since the data can be made to fit any number of radically different equations. We could fit it to some kind of sine function if we wanted to. For example: f(x) = A sin(Bx + C) would also fit the data for suitable values of A, B, and C. A scientific handling of the data requires that we don't play guessing games. We must use the simplest curve (usually favored by nature) that the data justifies. In this case, the data fits a linear curve (straight line) just as well. Thus, Barnes should have used a straight line. Even then, a careful scientist would not extrapolate very far beyond the limits of the data unless there was good justification for it.

Do the data actually fit this exponential formula? Barnes gives no evidence that they do; in fact, he does not even bother to present a plot showing the experimental points in relation to his theoretical curve. When one does construct such a plot (fig. 1) it becomes immediately obvious that the fit is not very good and that a straight line , is equally good, considering the scatter of the observational points. Indeed, that is what McDonald and Gunst themselves stated: "Since the time of Gauss's measurements the earth's dipole moment has decreased, sensibly linearly, at approximately the rate of 5 percent per hundred years" (quoted by Barnes 1973, p.34). (Brush, 1983, p.75)

Thus, instead of limiting the earth to less than 20,000 years of age, a more objective use of the data, a linear extrapolation, leads to 100 million years. However, both conclusions involve errors of procedure since there are no justifiable grounds for extending the curve great distances beyond the actual data. We would be dealing with pure speculation which proves nothing.

Point 3, alone, deprives Barnes's idea of any force, turning it into wild speculation.

4. Barnes simply ignores the fact that the earth's magnetic polarity has reversed itself on numerous occasions.

That fact, alone, is absolutely fatal to every fibre of Barnes's argument.

The theoretical basis for magnetic field reversals is Elsasser's dynamo theory, which is based on fluid motions in the earth's core (Elsasser 1946-1947; see Jacobs 1975, chap. 4, or Stacey 1977, chaps. 5 and 6). The dynamo theory assumes an energy source to keep the fluid moving; it is not yet established what the main source of energy is, but there are various possibilities such as radioactive heating, growth of the inner core, differential rotation of the core and mantle, etc. In any case, nothing justifies Barnes's assumption that there is no energy source. (Brush, 1983, p.76)

Barnes, like most creationists, is not above quoting obsolete sources. In a 1981 paper he made extensive use of a 1962 book by A. Jacobs which cited difficulties with the magnetic reversal hypothesis (Brush, 1983, p.76). Funny, that Barnes should quote a 1962 source. It was in the mid-1960s when the great discoveries started rolling which forever made magnetic reversals a fact of life! Odd, don't you think, that Barnes missed all those more recent sources? I guess they were not particularly "helpful."

In the same section of the later edition of this book, Jacobs states that "the evidence seems compelling" that such reversals have occurred (1975, p. 140). Barnes, however, omits the date of publication of the text he quotes from and completely ignores the fact that Jacobs changed his position in the 1975 edition. In fact, the principal creationist "expert" on geomagnetism writes as if the "revolution in the earth sciences" of the last two decades had never happened; he quotes A. A. and Howard Meyerhoff, two diehard opponents of plate tectonics, as if their "refutations" actually had been successful. (Brush, 1983, p.76)

Actually, considering that Barnes rejected modern relativity theory, quantum mechanics, and just about anything this side of nineteenth-century physics, it's not too surprising that he also rejected the revolution in geology. Barnes was born at the wrong time; I do believe he would have been happier in the nineteenth century.

Two years later, despite criticism from Brush, we find that Barnes is still ignoring the fact that Jacobs had changed his views. If someone concluded that Barnes was less than honest, could you blame that person?

In the January 1982 issue of Journal of Geological Education, Stephen Brush cites, as well as criticizing Barnes' "theory", that Jacobs accepted reversals once the evidence was overwhelming. However, in his book Origin And Destiny Of The earth's Magnetic Field, Barnes (1983b) rejects Brush's criticisms citing again Jacobs' 1963 objections, but omits the date and ignores the 1975 revision! In fact, in 1984, Jacobs wrote a book entitled Reversals of the Earth's Magnetic Field. (Wakefield, 1991, p.6)

Point 4, just by itself, is absolutely fatal to Barnes's idea in that it destroys the theoretical foundation for believing that the earth's magnetic field is continually decaying. In supporting the dynamo theory it also destroys any attempt to read into the data a continual decline.

We can safely relegate Barnes's magnetic field argument to the junk heap of crackpot ideas.

References

Alfven, Hannes, and Gustaf Arrhenius. 1976. Evolution of the Solar System NASA SP-345, National Space and Aeronautics Administration, Washington, D.C.

Aller, M. F. 1971. "Promethium in the star HR465" Sky & Telescope, vol.41, pp.220-222

Anderson, J. L. 1972. "Non-Poisson distributions observed during counting of certain carbon-14-labeled organic (sub) onolayers" Physical Chemistry Journal, vol.76, pp.3603-3612

Anderson, J. L. & G. W. Spangler. 1973. "Serial statistics: Is radioactive decay random?" Physical Chemistry Journal, vol.77, pp.3114-3121

Bailey, Lloyd R. 1989. NOAH: The Person and the Story in History and Tradition University of South Carolina Press, South Carolina

Banks, P. M. and T. E. Holzer. 1969. "High-latitude plasma transport; the polar wind" Geophysical Research Journal 74: 317-6332

Barnes, Thomas G. 1973. Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field, ICR Technical Monograph, No.4
1981. "Depletion of the Earth's Magnetic Field" ICR Impact Series, No.100 1983. Origin and Destiny
of the Earth's Magnetic Field, Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, California

Benningfield, Damond. 1990. "Where Do Comets Come From?"Astronomy, Vol.18, No.9 (September 1990), pp.28-36
Kalmbach Publishing Co., 21027 Crossroads Circle, P.O. Box 1612,Waukesha, WI 53187

Berra, Tim M. 1990. Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, Standford University Press, Stanford, California

Braginsky, S. I. 1970. "Oscillation spectrum of the hydromagnetic dynamo of the earth" Geomagnetism and Aeronomy 10:172-181

http://www.kent-hovind.com/matson/1proofs2.htm#11

Maza! Sai a hankali
da fatan kana lafiya. Aina kake karatu? Ko aiki? Yaushe kake samun daman yin bincike? don wasu abubuwan ka na bani mamaki. . . . .

Rhino.3dm:

Maza! Sai a hankali
da fatan kana lafiya. Aina kake karatu? Ko aiki? Yaushe kake samun daman yin bincike? don wasu abubuwan ka na bani mamaki. . . . .

Mazaaa Barka da Sallah. . . LOL. . . A Finland na ke maranta, Na soma yin Phd di na yanzu a nan. . . . .Sai da binchike ai mallam sabo da kar a rikiche. . . .Da fatan kana nan lafiya. . . . .A huta gajiya. . . . .

philip0906:

Proof 18 is my favorite as no atheist or scientist has been able 2 supply us answers

What do you mean by proof 18? . . , That is NO proof for anything it is just another lie . . .

The human exponential growth rate of the last few hundred years is possible only because of technology. When our ability to stay one jump ahead of starvation and disease fails, when our resources give out, then you'll see a dramatic change in that growth rate! It will no longer be exponential; it will be disastrous!

When man lived in scattered tribal groups, which is what he did for 99% of his history, the net human population growth was zero most of the time, just as it is for animals today. Animal populations, especially small animals such as rabbits or mice, often undergo cycles of boom and bust but their net growth is zero. No permanent increase in population can be sustained unless it is supported by a permanent change in the environment. Such a change might include the loss of a predator due to the colonization of new territory, a permanent increase in the food supply due to climatic change or a change in dietary habits, or a variety of other factors. In the case of man, hunting technology, the development of agriculture, and the use of fossil fuels have played major roles. After a favorable change in the environment, a population of animals (or people) may record a permanent jump before leveling off at a zero net growth again. Thus, the growth rate, before technology intervened in a major way, necessarily involved a series of plateaus where the population was in approximate equilibrium with the environment. No doubt, many tribal groups died out. Anthropologists can cite several examples of early human or near-human species, side branches on our evolutionary tree, which left no descendants. There was no assurance that early man would even survive. When favorable changes did occur, large jumps between plateau levels would likely have been exponential. Indeed, the human exponential growth rate of the last 300 years or so can be thought of as one long jump to a new plateau which has been raised artificially high by technology. Those who imagine that eight people gave rise to everyone living today according to a simple exponential growth curve have demonstrated an inability to think things through. Let's look at the equation involved in these growth rate calculations.

P(n) = P(1 + r)^n

P(n), called the function P of n, is the population generated after n years. (With the proper adjustment of r, n could be months or generations, etc. For our purposes, years will do nicely and r will be adjusted accordingly.) P (the multiplied factor on the right-hand side of the equation) is the initial population which, in our case, is eight. The growth rate is r which would be close to zero for humanity per year. A negative value would indicate a population decline. Henry Morris used a value for r of 0.0033 [0.33%] in a similar calculation which started with Adam and Eve. However, since the flood supposedly reduced the population to eight people 1656 years after creation, a figure Dr. Hovind gives based on patriarchal ages, we should start our exponential curve at the latter date. If we assume, for the sake of this argument, that the earth is 6000 years old, then we start our calculation with 8 people 4344 years ago. We must wind up with the present population of 5.5 billion people.

It turns out that if r = 0.0047 then after 4344 years we would wind up with about 5.6 billion people, which is close enough. After substituting the values for P and r into the above equation we are at liberty to try out different values for n to obtain the population at different times. At the time the Israelites entered Canaan, for instance, we get a world population of 2024! By the time you divide that up between Egypt, Canaan, the rest of the world, and Israel, that leaves maybe 6 or 7 people for the Israeli army! If we go back to the time that the Hykos were expelled from Egypt, in 1560 BC, we get a world population of 325 people!

We can't calculate the population at the time the Great Pyramid of Cheops was built, around 2500 BC, because it was supposedly washed away by Noah's flood!! Being an antediluvian structure, many people might have been available to work on it. Odd, that the Great Pyramid of Cheops shows no water marks. Stranger still, that the Egyptians should be unaware of Noah's flood! I would think that Noah's flood, coming a mere century or thereabouts after the Great Pyramid of Cheops was built, would have found a prominent place in the Egyptian annuals.

As you can see, an exponential growth curve leads to absurdity when we assume that 8 people generated today's population. Creationists, of course, could jack the r value way up at the start, jack it way down in the middle, and jack it up again for modern times, but the ad hoc nature of such an argument becomes a little too obvious. Regarding the foolishness of this whole enterprise, Dr. Alan Hayward had this to say:

Nobody who has ever studied the population explosion would make such an unwise extrapolation. It is well known that growth rates have increased enormously in recent centuries. Population expert Paul Ehrlich gives world average yearly growth rates of 0.9 per cent between 1850 and 1930, 0.3 per cent between 1650 and 1850, and a mere 0.07 per cent in the thousand years prior to 1650. And in the fourteenth century the population increase must have been very small indeed, and it may even have been turned into a big decrease, because of the Black Death. Ehrlich's figures are not just guesses; they are based on historical records. These facts show how misguided it is to extrapolate present population trends into the remote past.
(Hayward, 1985, p.136)

The Times Atlas of World History (1978) estimated that the world population increased 16 times between 8000 BC and 4000 BC. That yields a growth rate (r = 0.069%) which is almost identical to the figure quoted above by Hayward for ancient times.

Try plugging in some real data! It does make a difference. If we assume a growth rate of 0.07% before 1650 (a rate already a bit high because of agriculture), a growth rate of 0.3% between 1650 and 1850, a growth rate of 0.9% between 1850 and 1930, and a growth rate of 2.0% between 1930 and 1994 you will find that Noah and his crew are the ancestors of a whopping 1740 people today!

On that note, I think we can move on to the next point.

philip0906:

U have answered urself in your post. . .no matter how scientists try 2 add up,they'll still fall in d "thousand" range

What is this? Kenhovind and his cohorts just keep on coming with their lies. Meet the Namib desert which is the oldest desert in the world. What do age and size have to do with each other anyway?

^^
I'm not sure u read what u just typed there.Does it make sense 2 u?especially d bold part?I'm talking real data here,not maths or science or assumptions.

Today the Earth’s population doubles every 50 years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and started with one couple it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today’s population

Today the population grows at 2% per year. If we set the population growth rate at just 0.5% per year, then total population reduces to zero at about 4500 years ago. If the first humans lived 1,000,000 years ago, then at this 0.5% growth rate, we would have 10^2100 (ten with 2100 zeroes following it) people right now. If the present population was a result of 1,000,000 years of human history, then several trillion people must have lived and died since the emergence of our species

philip0906:

^^
I'm not sure u read what u just typed there.Does it make sense 2 u?especially d bold part?I'm talking real data here,not maths or science or assumptions.

I read it and it is a LIE, todays earth population DOES NOT double every 50 years that is a FALSE statement and a LIE. . . . . .If you have any scientific data that says that the earth population doubles every 50 years pls bring it on. . . . . . .Stop copying and posting things you do NOT even completely understand and know. . . . . .If you want to rely on scientific data use the figures of scientist NOT the figures given to you by frauds like Kent Hovind who is NOT scientist. . . . .