₦airaland Forum

Mudley313:
i thought as much

Facts:

Islam is a stone aged cankerous violent and backward arabian religion that condones peadophilia, savagery, murder, genocide, suicide etc and is currently the biggest threat to peace in today's modern world

Allah is a stone aged non-existent arabian deity that promises imaginary virgins as rewards for savagery

Muhammad is a known peadophile

You are a slowpoke

Islam as a religion is a COMPLETE failure and is , that is why its adherents have to fight their way to make it relevant and give it some kind of importance. Why on earth will people always be fighting for their God? If Allah truly exist and is the most powerful as the love chanting why don't they let Allah deal with those that burn his book? Why must they always be in arm killing people because of some provocation?. . . . .Islam is a violent religion and that is a FACT. . . . .

[quote author=Rhino.3dm link=topic=512112.msg6738082#msg6738082 date=1284244046]Ina shuttling tsakanin lagos,portharcourt,abuja. Off-shore and malabo .
Amma gaskiya ina son in yi relocation zuwa abuja permanently.
Last week ina kaduna akwai wani abokina na niman chairman a kaduna north.[/quote]Sai da siyasa, a nan kudin ta ke. . . . . .

[quote author=Rhino.3dm link=topic=512112.msg6738098#msg6738098 date=1284244229]Kasan europeans din nan sun dauke mu wawa ye ne, sai ka ga wani jahili kudin shi ya ninka naka sau goma. Wai don shi bature ne.[/quote]Na rabaka. . .Mutanin banza ne ai. . . . . .

[quote author=Rhino.3dm link=topic=512112.msg6738128#msg6738128 date=1284244594]Yan kudu kuma da sun ga kana da ruwan arewa sai kallon banza. Ai uwarsu ni ke ci. . . . Wai ya za a yi kazo daga arewa kuma ka hadu a boko?. Shi yasa nike matukan farin ciki in na dan arewa mai ilimi.[/quote]Kai kiyale yan kudu, shegu ba so san komai ba sai girman kai . . .Ko a nan ma sun so so na mun kallon banza amma da so ka gane ni sai girma kawai suke bani, mahaukata. . . . .Ka san yan kudu a kuwai raine. . . .Su na mana yan arewa kallon mahaukata. . . . . . .Ko da shike ba laifin su bane wani lokachin. . . . . .

[quote author=Rhino.3dm link=topic=512112.msg6737820#msg6737820 date=1284240646]Maza!
Ni haifeffen arewa ne, uwata bahaushiya ce, amma ubana mutumin ghana ne, ina da first and second degree(naki karasawa har yanzu tun da nasamu aiki) in mechanical and production Engineering, kuma ina aiki da wani multinational, amma yanzu in sashen advanced dimensional and numerical control Engineering,ba a koyar da shi a makaranta, amma alaji shegun basu biyana susai, don sun biya mun wasu kudi masu yawa wajen training a europe da brazil da kuma dubai. Yanzu ina ta rikichi sai sun mun kari. . . . .[/quote]Maza, sai da harkan karin kudi ai, kasan maganan kudi babu wassa. . . . .A ina kake da zama a naijeriya. . . . .

The Abrahamic religions think only of competition. The religions are based ONLY on castigating others to survive. . . . . .My God is better than your God is the principle on which all the Abrahimic religions are founded upon, so as long as people continue to believe in them there will always be division. . . .What are people to do when there are passages in the bible and the koran which people stupidly accept as the word of God which says that unbelievers are condemned already(in the bible) and Allah hates the unbeliever(in the koran)?. . . .How will you like a person that your God has already declared as condemned or his enemy? As long as people continue to foolishly believe i these crazy religions there will always be division and hate on both sides no matter how people love to pretend or conceal their hatred and dislike for each other. . . .

vescucci:
strictly mene? In kuna so privacy, sai ka yi exchanging lumber waya ku ko email. Wan nan public forum ne. Ni, zan saa katon baki na. Ku yi hakuri. Hausa na, bai yi da kyau.

LOL. . . . . . . . .

Mazaaaaa, Yane? Da fatan kana nan lafiya lau. . . . .

Zafin summer ta ragu sosai, yanzu ma sanyi ta so ma shigo wa a hankali anan. . . . . .Amma dai muna nan muna ta bin mata, ba pashi. . . . . LOL. . . . .

Na soma karatu da jimawa(2004). . . .Yanzu dai na so ma Phd di na a information system management. . . . .Na yi first degree a software engineering and management da kuma masters a engineering management. . . . .

A kuwai hausa wa irina da yawa a turai wanda suke binchike so sai, dama da kuma hali da mutane sun rasa a nijeriya shi yake hana mutane da dama yin binchike. . . . .Kai mutumin ina ne?

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=510077.msg6725337#msg6725337 date=1284035376]Islam is already a religious disgrace, both from the actions of those who murder by Koranic right, and the moslem populace with their passive acceptance of these things. They're rewriting what Islam stands for. I'm trying to think of a multi-religious country with a significant Moslem population that knows peace.None comes to mind. It's very hard to remember some Moslems actually have a head they use for thinking intead of merely pointing at the east. When Rushdie wrote The Satanic verses and that psychopath Ayatollah declared a fatwa, it was a leading Moslem cleric that sheltered Rushdie. Many liberal moslems banded together and declared that The Satanic Verses did not damage Islam as much as an order to murder the author has. So some people are burning Korans. It's not right but you moslems have no ground for complaint. You'd rather they burn Moslems instead, like moslems do to other human beings in the North? I don't know the moral leg you're standing on, given how rabid Islam is in its own intolerance, how full of hate. At least other religions do their evil to themselves; yours are to others, which is the worst. Stop defending the indefensible and put your house in order. [/quote] . . . . . . Mad Max. . ,

[quote author=bashy_demy link=topic=505028.msg6725507#msg6725507 date=1284037129]Can you guys talk about the rest of the Question and Answer's like the cain and Abel and other parts.[/quote]The Cain and Abel myth is ONLY theology, it has NOTHING to do with reality at all. . . . .I am not going to start some endless theological argument with Mr Philip. . . . .

philip0906:
You can do d calcs urself. . .
http://www.prb.org/educators/teachersguides/humanpopulation/populationgrowth.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

Its very clear you didn't bother to read the link you provided because there is nothing i there that comes close to what you got from Kent Hovnd's website. . . . . .

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. . . . .

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?

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.

[quote author=Rhino.3dm link=topic=505028.msg6723521#msg6723521 date=1284002230]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. . . . .[/quote]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:
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

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. . . . .

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:
@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. . . .

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. . . . .

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.

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).

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)

nopuqeater:
@MAzaje; You are incorrigible. It is Quran. There is a stark different between Qaaf and Kaaf in Arabic.


If I begin to write yuor name as Madaje, or Magaje or Mudage, or something that is not Mazaje, how would you like it? This is even better than when you say Koran, instead of Quran, from Qira, Qurri.

What is this? . . . . .koran, go hang yourself if you don't like the way am calling it. . . .koran, koran,koran,koran,koran,koran,koran. . . . .nonsense!

Abagworo:
Low waist don reign finish,na high waste dey reign now.

Rotflmfao

Dis one no ne waist ohhh, this na chest, from low waist to chest. . . .LOL. . . .

Why the heck and the slaves of the arabic Idol crying when they have also burned the bible before? I am not saying that burning the koran is right, but Muslims should NOT be crying since they are also on record for publicly burning the bible. . . . .I wonder why people are busy crying because some mythical books are burned. . . . . .

nopuqeater:
@Phillips0600: I doubt if a Pakistani citizenry is Christian, because that country was formed away from India because of purity of Islam.

Is burning the bible part of the purity of Islam? According to the link philip posted people bur the bible in Pakistan,no?

philip0906:
If it is not done in defense like I said,yes it is not sensible.I have never been 2 d islamic forum b4.I have never set my eyes on d quran b4.Can't give a description of what a quran looks like,so i know what I'm saying.My Bible is enough 4 me

A lot of Christians here regularly post on the Islamic forum, the sections strict moderators is what is holding a lot of them from posting there presently. . . . .A lot have been banned as a result of their activities on the islamic section. . . . . . .For those of us that are from the North, we know that a lot of Christians just love to attack the Koran( the attack is from both side though). . . . .

philip0906:
No sensible christian goes about attacking d koran. . .even if there are,they r in d minority or those that have been "forced" 2 take a peep in2 d Koran in defence against attacks received 4rm them

That means a lot of the Christians here on NL are not sensible since most of them attack the Koran. . . . .