AGE OF THE EARTH
I have copied this from the ICR website:
VII. Deduction of 10,000-Year Age Limit on the Earth.
Knowing the half-life of the earth's magnetic moment, one may easily work backwards to set up an historical schedule of the earth's magnetic moment and of the associated magnetic field. If that is done, it will be seen that the value of the earth's magnetic field approaches that of a magnetic star if the earth's magnetic field goes back 10,000 years. But a magnetic star has a magnetic field generated by a huge nuclear power source. Surely it is reasonable to assume the constraint that the earth never had such a powerful source and, therefore, never had a magnetic field equal to that of a magnetic star. With that constraint, physics implies a limit on the age of the earth's magnet of less than 10,000 years.
Because there is no known geophysical means, within the last 10,000 years, of starting up the huge magnet in the earth, one is led to conclude that the origin of the magnet was concurrent with the creation of the earth. Hence, the earth also has an age limit of less than 10,000 years.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTION
It was an interesting session at the annual conference of the Central Texas Conference of the Methodist Church. I was pleased that my resolution got on the agenda. I got there about 15 minutes before the session reconvened. While I was standing talking to Mary Barton at the Cross Plains table a young man came up with the resolution in his agenda and asked if I was present. I introduced myself and he told me how pleased he was to see the resolution. He works with young people in his ministry and liked the resolution. That gave me hope.
There were two resolutions: mine followed by one urging the Congress to pass legislation recognizing illegal immigrants. A presentation by the organization that provides legal advice to immigrants preceded the resolutions and the committee chair opted to vote on the immigrant resolution first. It passed with no discussion.
He then presented my resolution. Rev. Worcester from my church requested permission for me to speak to the resolution. The assembly had to vote to approve my speaking. That passed with about 20% disagreeing. I spoke for my allotted 3 minutes. The discussion then ramped up with the Bishop permitting three speakers for and three against. A motion to vote was made and approved. The vote was to approve or disagree with the recommendation that it not be approved. Thus a vote yes meant you were against the resolution and a vote no meant you approved the resolution. Two of the speakers against the resolution were professors of biology and physics. One young man told the assembly that if this was approved they would be the laughing stock of Texas. A woman teacher discussed my statement that creation scientists couldn't publish in peer reviewed papers because their peers didn't approve.
In the final vote the resolution was disapproved by a very large margin. I may have gotten 10 or 20 percent. I have written the Bishop thanking him for letting the resolution come forward. It could have been thrown out for being out of order, but a staff member helped rewrite it to meet their criteria. It is one step forward.
This morning I got a call from Rev. Jim Senkel who offered to submit a similar resolution but with wording that he thinks has more promise. His is stating that neither the theory of evolution nor creation can be proven and should both be taught. I disagree because I think the theory of evolution violates the laws of physics and chemistry and should be discarded, but that is a large step in today's world. I need to learn to be less offensive in my approach, but I am getting more and more passionate about my feelings.
The day before I got an email from my oldest grandson with an announcement of a seminar in Austin October 26, 27 and 28 that will examine the Christian vs. Naturalistic viewpoints. Look at www.vibrantdance.org. I plan to attend. It is directed at educating ministers as well as lay.
It was an interesting session at the annual conference of the Central Texas Conference of the Methodist Church. I was pleased that my resolution got on the agenda. I got there about 15 minutes before the session reconvened. While I was standing talking to Mary Barton at the Cross Plains table a young man came up with the resolution in his agenda and asked if I was present. I introduced myself and he told me how pleased he was to see the resolution. He works with young people in his ministry and liked the resolution. That gave me hope.
There were two resolutions: mine followed by one urging the Congress to pass legislation recognizing illegal immigrants. A presentation by the organization that provides legal advice to immigrants preceded the resolutions and the committee chair opted to vote on the immigrant resolution first. It passed with no discussion.
He then presented my resolution. Rev. Worcester from my church requested permission for me to speak to the resolution. The assembly had to vote to approve my speaking. That passed with about 20% disagreeing. I spoke for my allotted 3 minutes. The discussion then ramped up with the Bishop permitting three speakers for and three against. A motion to vote was made and approved. The vote was to approve or disagree with the recommendation that it not be approved. Thus a vote yes meant you were against the resolution and a vote no meant you approved the resolution. Two of the speakers against the resolution were professors of biology and physics. One young man told the assembly that if this was approved they would be the laughing stock of Texas. A woman teacher discussed my statement that creation scientists couldn't publish in peer reviewed papers because their peers didn't approve.
In the final vote the resolution was disapproved by a very large margin. I may have gotten 10 or 20 percent. I have written the Bishop thanking him for letting the resolution come forward. It could have been thrown out for being out of order, but a staff member helped rewrite it to meet their criteria. It is one step forward.
This morning I got a call from Rev. Jim Senkel who offered to submit a similar resolution but with wording that he thinks has more promise. His is stating that neither the theory of evolution nor creation can be proven and should both be taught. I disagree because I think the theory of evolution violates the laws of physics and chemistry and should be discarded, but that is a large step in today's world. I need to learn to be less offensive in my approach, but I am getting more and more passionate about my feelings.
The day before I got an email from my oldest grandson with an announcement of a seminar in Austin October 26, 27 and 28 that will examine the Christian vs. Naturalistic viewpoints. Look at www.vibrantdance.org. I plan to attend. It is directed at educating ministers as well as lay.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
BRAD HARRUB'S LECTURES
Last Friday and Saturday I attended three lectures by Dr. Brad Harrup that were given at the Church of Christ in Rising Star. The first lecture was entitled "Are You Convicted" and is the title of his book. He gave me a copy and I gave him a copy of the Stanford Research Institute paper by two Australian physicists who came up with the theory that the speed of light is slowing and in the past was many times what it is now, so that light coming from distant galaxies may have been much faster then than now changing the "light-year" distance. They published a separate paper using their theory to correlate with the Biblical events of a young earth. Harrub had heard of the papers but hadn't read them.
His book also was the material for the other two lectures on fossils and dinosaurs arguing that the geological column is fictitious because of artifacts discovered in coal beds when the evolutionary thesis is that man was millions of years later than the coal beds. He had visited Mt. St. Helens on the 30th anniversary of the eruption and explained how great canyons were formed overnight and now the many trees washed into a new lake are forming peat beds and will become coal. He related that to the textbook descriptions of the Grand Canyon being formed by the Colorado river over millions of years when it was probably formed overnight like the one at Mt. St. Helens.
I edited my resolution the way it is printed in the Annual Conference preliminary report and hope to be able to defend it tomorrow when it is scheduled to be voted on at 3:15. The Church and Society Committee recommended Non-Concurrence. The only other resolution is one to admit illegal aliens that they support. Should be an interesting discussion of resolutions tomorrow.
Last Friday and Saturday I attended three lectures by Dr. Brad Harrup that were given at the Church of Christ in Rising Star. The first lecture was entitled "Are You Convicted" and is the title of his book. He gave me a copy and I gave him a copy of the Stanford Research Institute paper by two Australian physicists who came up with the theory that the speed of light is slowing and in the past was many times what it is now, so that light coming from distant galaxies may have been much faster then than now changing the "light-year" distance. They published a separate paper using their theory to correlate with the Biblical events of a young earth. Harrub had heard of the papers but hadn't read them.
His book also was the material for the other two lectures on fossils and dinosaurs arguing that the geological column is fictitious because of artifacts discovered in coal beds when the evolutionary thesis is that man was millions of years later than the coal beds. He had visited Mt. St. Helens on the 30th anniversary of the eruption and explained how great canyons were formed overnight and now the many trees washed into a new lake are forming peat beds and will become coal. He related that to the textbook descriptions of the Grand Canyon being formed by the Colorado river over millions of years when it was probably formed overnight like the one at Mt. St. Helens.
I edited my resolution the way it is printed in the Annual Conference preliminary report and hope to be able to defend it tomorrow when it is scheduled to be voted on at 3:15. The Church and Society Committee recommended Non-Concurrence. The only other resolution is one to admit illegal aliens that they support. Should be an interesting discussion of resolutions tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)