Human Ancestors – Creation Perspective

Posted on Apr 4, 2015 in Marianis from the Front, The Biggest Challenges to Evolution | 0 comments

Creation Answer: God created man on day 6 and man was originally very intelligent and even walked with God. Man did not evolve from lower forms of human and was not a dumb caveman. At the time of creation, God originally made man and apes as two different kinds. “There are many differences between humans and apes that can be seen in fossil remains. These include the fact that humans walk erect and so have appropriate/distinctive knee and hip joints, backbone, toes, etc. Humans also have an opposable thumb, make and use sophisticated tools as well as fire, and engage in diverse creativity. They have a larger brain capacity than apes, smaller teeth set in parabolic or V-shaped, rather than U-shaped, jaws, and they sometimes write, paint or make and play musical instruments. Communication by language is another crucial difference, as is the ability to do mathematics. Other differences include the exercise of reason and free-will, rather than just instinct.”[i] Obviously, many of these characteristics cannot be observed from fossils. Imagine the fame, the prestige, and the money that follows the discovery of a new hominid species. That is part of the problem. Many evolutionists will find human and/or ape bones and claim they are human ancestors in order to get more funding for their research. There are hardly any links found for modern apes, because many of the confusing bones that are found are automatically claimed as a human ancestor…because they can get more funding for that research than for ape ancestors. “Evolutionists looking for evidence of apemen search for fossils that show anatomical features that look ‘intermediate’ between those of apes and humans, or that show some but not all of the above bodily characteristics. This has provided a fertile field for hoaxers.”[ii] There have been many human ancestor hoaxes that deceived even the scientific community and have been taught incorrectly for decades. Piltdown Man was “’discovered’ in England from 1908 to 1912…and was probably the most quoted ‘evidence for evolution’ for around 40 years.” The evidence for Piltdown Man turned out to be a human skullcap matched with the lower jaw of an orangutan that were stained and filed to fit.[iii] “The Illustrated London News for June 24, 1922, printed” Nebraska Man “as an upright-standing apeman, showing the shape of his body, head, nose, ears, hair, etc., together with his wife, domestic animals, and tools.” The evidence was one tooth, which later turned out to be a tooth from an extinct pig.[iv] Ramepithecus was “once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realised that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).”[v] Beyond the hoaxes, an evolutionist article admits that “over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground.”[vi] One of...

Read More

Human Ancestors – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

Posted on Apr 3, 2015 in Marianis from the Front, The Biggest Challenges to Evolution | 0 comments

Introduction: Were our early ancestors ape-like creatures, or fully-formed human beings? Did we evolve from intelligently created humans or dumb cavemen? Why do many people think humans evolved from animals? What are the human transitions that indicate this? What are the characteristics people consider to be “human”?   Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer: Modern humans have evolved from previous less-evolved forms in East Africa “nearly 200,000 years ago in association with technologies not unlike those of early Neandertals. It is now clear that early Homo sapiens, or modern humans, did not come after the Neandertals but were their contemporaries. However, it is likely that both modern humans and Neandertals descended from Homo heidelbergensis. Compared to the Neandertals and other late archaic humans, modern humans generally have more delicate skeletons. Their skulls are more rounded and their brow ridges generally protrude much less.”[i] “The first fossils of early modern humans to be identified were found in 1868 at the 27,000-23,000 year old Cro-Magnon rock shelter site…in southwestern France. The oldest evidence of modern man is from a 195,000 year old fossil” in Ethiopia that “shows the beginnings of the skull changes that we associate with modern people, including a rounded skull case and possibly a projecting chin.”[ii] Orrorin tugenensis contains what are by far the oldest human-like bones that have been found, having “consistently been dated at 6 million years old.”[iii] “Homo is the genus of great apes that emerged around 2.4m [million] years ago and includes modern humans.”[iv] Some researchers believe that the replacement model is correct, which says that modern humans evolved in Africa and then at a later time around 60,000-40,000 years ago they began to spread around the world and replace other hominids. Other researchers believe in the regional continuity model, which states that all over the world, populations were slowly evolving in the same way (through intermittent interbreeding) to become more human. Still other researchers suggest that human evolution occurred as a mix of the two models, called the assimilation model. New fossils are continually being found to confirm numerous diverse pre-human species that can trace our lineage. The five different skulls found together at Dmanisi, Georgia, do not discredit Australopithecus sediba or the rest of the human evolutionary tree as creationists might try to claim. Lee Berger, the discoverer of A sediba, says that “this is a fantastic and important discovery, but I don’t think the evidence they have lives up to this broad claim they are making. They say this falsifies that Australopithecus sediba is the ancestor of Homo. The very simple response is, no it doesn’t.”[v] “Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London [says] ‘Africa is a huge continent with a deep record of the earliest stages of human evolution, and there certainly seems to have been species-level diversity there prior to two million years ago. So I still...

Read More

Radiometric Dating – Creation Perspective

Posted on Mar 20, 2015 in Marianis from the Front, The Biggest Challenges to Evolution | 0 comments

  Creationists do admit that radioactive decay has occurred, but “it is important to understand the simple, fundamental principle behind all dating methods, and why they are not able to produce objective, absolute dates…The fatal flaw is that all scientific measurements are made in the present, whereas a date relates to a time in the past. We cannot go back into the past to measure all the parameters we need in order to do the dating calculation. Hence, all these parameters must be assumed—always. There is no other way.”[i] Naturalists still make assumptions even if they try to say that they don’t have to know initial conditions. There are many assumptions that have to be made when using radiometric dating methods that might make these techniques unreliable. If any of these assumptions are wrong, then the reliability of the testing method can and should be put in question. The three main assumptions that affect the results of radiometric dating are: 1) the rate of decay has always been constant, 2) there has been no contamination (no movement of elements into or out of the object over time), and 3) we can determine how much daughter element there was to begin with.[ii] There are many test results that make the reliability of these dating techniques very questionable.[iii] Naturalists try to explain these questionable results, but still can’t adequately explain them from their worldview.[iv] Evidence from “as far back as 1971” may show “that high pressure could increase decay rates very slightly for at least 14 isotopes.”[v] Naturalists even admit that radiocarbon dating does not work on living mussels because of the lack of new carbon in that environment. So what other situations and conditions create unreliable results that we must also throw out the dating because of? In radiocarbon dating, there is limited precision and “given the way the atmospheric radiocarbon concentration has varied [based on tree ring dating results], there might be several possible ranges” of dates for the object being analyzed.[vi] Plants and trees that are near volcanic areas appear older because the carbon they absorb will be older, from underground, and thus should have very little if any C-14. “The widespread emanation of 14C-free volcanogenic carbon dioxide after the Flood would have further inflated the carbon-14 dates of tree rings in a systematic manner in many parts of the world.”[vii] Naturalists have to assume whether wood remains were near volcanic vents or not. We would expect more volcanic activity due to the effects of the flood, naturalists would not expect or account for that. There is also a lot of evidence that there is too much C-14 within supposedly old materials.[viii] C-14, which can’t last more than 100,000 years, has been found in coal, in oil, in fossils, in fossil wood, in diamonds, and even in deep strata where it should not exist.[ix] This evidence is above what naturalists can simply claim...

Read More

Radiometric Dating – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

Posted on Mar 17, 2015 in Marianis from the Front, The Biggest Challenges to Evolution | 0 comments

    Introduction: Radioactive elements are primarily heavier elements on the periodic scale with unstable atoms, usually because they are so big, and consequently the nucleus breaks down and loses energy, forming smaller atoms and particles and resulting in a more stable element. This process is sometimes described as going from a parent isotope (beginning element) to a daughter isotope (ending element). Radiometric Dating methods are absolute methods in determining how old testable items are. Based on radiometric dating… how old is the earth? Why is it important to know the age of the earth? How many assumptions are made in these techniques? How large is the error within tests? Is radiometric dating reliable?   Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer: Radiometric dating has proven, over and over again, that the earth is billions of years old. Scientists know through diligent research that there are different methods for open systems, closed systems, and different rock types,[i] and corrections are able to be done to determine an accurate result. “Some of the methods have internal checks, so that the data themselves provide good evidence of reliability or lack thereof.”[ii] Errors will be clearly recognized when the data is analyzed. “The ages of rock formations are rarely based on a single, isolated age measurement,” but “are verified whenever possible and practical, and are evaluated by considering other relevant data.”[iii] Radiocarbon dating (Carbon-14 decays away over time) is one of the most common dating techniques. “Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow. Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists…have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years. They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon (C-14) dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods.”[iv] From observations, there are usually many daughter isotopes and evidence (including radiohalos) of those having come from parent isotopes, which are less abundant (which is to be expected). More radioactive decay has taken place within the rocks than could have occurred in just a few thousand years. To suggest that the amount of radioactive decay we observe has occurred within 6,000 years, or even that the majority occurred due to a worldwide flood, is preposterous. It would have created a vast of heat all at once. Creationists claim that there are many examples where radiometric dating has supposedly been shown to be unreliable. “This argument is specious and akin to concluding that all wristwatches do not work because you happen to find one that does not keep accurate time…Some of the “errors” are not errors at all but simply results obtained in the continuing effort to explore and improve the methods and their application.”[v] “Studies…are routinely done to ascertain which materials are suitable for dating and which are not, and to determine the cause of sometimes strange results.” For...

Read More

Beauty and Art – Creation Perspective

Posted on Feb 26, 2015 in Marianis from the Front, The Biggest Challenges to Evolution | 0 comments

Creation Answer: Beauty and art are not just the result of evolution for mating purposes.[i] “Essentially, the foundational argument would suggest that, given the universal reality that the concept of “beauty” exists (even if it is in “the eye of the beholder”) there is an ultimate “standard” by which beauty is judged. Determining the aesthetic value of anything requires rational judgment, even though that judgment is unique to each individual.  Each rational judgment must rely on one’s ability to discriminate at a sensory or emotional level.”[ii] “This examination makes a judgment regarding whether something is beautiful, sublime, disgusting, fun, cute, silly, entertaining, pretentious, discordant, harmonious, boring, humorous, or tragic. And, of course, since such an ability exists only in the mental acuity of imaginative appreciation, then the Source of such ability must also be both rational and emotional.”[iii] God created man beautiful in His own image. The beauty in nature (including humans) is to reflect the glory and majesty of God and what He created, and also to show the unique design and creativity of our Designer. Like every other created thing, beauty and art were created as reminders for us to glorify God. All glory is owed to Him. Beauty and a creative, artistic ability are characteristics of humanity. Humans were created intricately and very uniquely to reflect God’s ability and talents, that through what He created, people could acknowledge that He is God. God has given an almost limitless supply of resources and creativity for humans to develop further forms of art. God is Himself a magnificent artist. He designed the stars in the sky. He designed an amazing variety of animal and plant life. He paints beautiful sunsets that cause our jaws to drop in awe. God’s intricate artistic design is evidenced even down to the smallest functions of our cells. Our God is an awesome God. The sense of awe that a human feels inspires belief and is itself an evidence of God.[iv] “He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end” (Eccl 3:11, NIV). “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands,” (Ps 19:1), “because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” (Rom 1:19-20 NASB) Math is deeply rooted within art. Without math, people and scientists would not be able to know and figure out the artistic nature and beauty of our bodies.[v] This connection between math and art did not just develop naturally, but it was designed by God. God set the...

Read More

Beauty and Art – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

Posted on Feb 25, 2015 in Marianis from the Front, The Biggest Challenges to Evolution | 0 comments

Introduction: “Aesthetics is the study of beauty, more often associated today with art.”[i] Some believe that beauty and art have developed as we have evolved, mainly for mating purposes and driven by selfish desires. Others believe that beauty and art were designed by a beautiful, loving, creative God to show His nature and glory to us and through us. What is beauty? Why do we have beauty? Is beauty for more than just mating purposes? What is art? Why is art so mathematical? Why do beautiful things like a sunset move us?  Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer: Beauty is displayed through people of both genders, as well as through the natural world. Beauty is an evolutionary advantage, present in people who are possibly at a higher evolved state. Based on natural selection, they will be chosen first, mate sooner and potentially survive better. This is the theory of sexual selection.[ii] Some think that only certain people have “natural beauty” stored in them and that beauty will show in their physical appearance or even in their skills or talents.[iii] “Natural beauty” may instead be universal, within every human being to one degree or another and it may be passed down by Natural Selection.[iv] “There are indeed atheists who find no meaning, beauty, and morality in the universe. There are also atheists who find objective, intrinsic morality, beauty, and meaning in the universe, though not on the same basis as religious theists like Christians. There are also atheists — as well as more than a few religious theists, including Christians — who argue that meaning and beauty are subjective things we must personally commit to. As abstract concepts, they are created in our minds from our experiences with individual objects or events and thus have no truly independent, objective existence apart from the way we bring those elements together to create those concepts.”[v] “The experience of love and beauty…is a passive function of the mind.”[vi] “This would mean that things like beauty and love are created from how we approach our world or how we treat other people. If that’s true, then it also means that we are personally responsible for the existence of things like beauty and love — they aren’t created by any gods and they are permanent fixtures of the universe which will persist regardless of what we do. They are, instead, something we must take responsibility for and nurture through our attitudes, behavior, and beliefs.”[vii] “That would arguably mean that atheists are in a better position to appreciate things like love and beauty. In recognizing their responsibility for their existence, atheists can’t take such concepts for granted. If the universe is undesigned and undirected, we can only speak meaningfully about beauty, love, intelligence, etc., if we really mean it and if we really care about it because we can’t shift responsibility for them to some supernatural being.”[viii] How much greater is the...

Read More

Laws of Logic – Creation Perspective

Posted on Nov 13, 2014 in Marianis from the Front, The Biggest Challenges to Evolution | 0 comments

  Creation Answer: Everyone uses the laws of logic, and they are evidence of the nature, design, and existence of God. Christians use the laws of logic to provide substantiation to the idea that God’s word is true, just as naturalists/evolutionists use them to argue their beliefs. God gave us the tools of logic so we can think, grow, learn, and do science. The laws of logic “are rooted in God’s own nature. Indeed, some scholars think the passage ‘In the beginning was the Word [logos]’ (Jn 1:1) is accurately translated, ‘In the beginning was Logic (a divine, rational mind).’”[i] There are numerous laws of logic.[ii] One of them is called the law of non-contradiction, which states that it is impossible for something to both be true and false at the same time and in the same sense. For example it is contradictory, or it doesn’t make sense, to say that “a banana is a fruit and a banana is not a fruit.” The banana is either a fruit or it isn’t. Another law is called the law of identity, where something is actually the same with itself and different from another, or not something different than itself. The law of excluded middle says that there are only two choices in every proposition, either it has to be true (and its negation false) or false (and its negation true). “The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason or cause.”[iii] “The Law of Cause and Effect states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause.”[iv] Naturalists can’t sufficiently answer why these laws exist and will even try to ignore the laws of logic in some cases. In fact, one apologist says “perhaps the Law of Cause and Effect seems intuitive to most, but common sense is foreign to many when God is brought into the discussion.”[v] This is true when naturalists are forced to try to explain the cause of the universe without the most logical cause (the all-powerful, outside of time and space, God). The naturalistic worldview has a lot of unanswerable questions. God did not create the laws of logic. The “laws of logic are contingent on God. They are a reflection of the way God thinks. Thus, they cannot exist without Him any more than your reflection in a mirror can exist without you.”[vi] Since God has always existed and thought, the laws of logic are also eternal. “It is impossible for God to think illogically because in the Christian worldview, logic is a description of the way God thinks. The believer has a universal standard of reasoning that makes sense within his own worldview. The atheist does not.” [vii] The atheist, who claims that the laws of logic are eternal, “fails to explain how the Laws of Logic can be eternal and uncaused and what role they play in causing all other contingent realities.”[viii]...

Read More

Laws of Logic – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

Posted on Nov 12, 2014 in Marianis from the Front, The Biggest Challenges to Evolution | 0 comments

  Introduction: What is logic and how does it work? We use logic everyday, even when we don’t think about it. “A simple definition of logic is ‘the study of right reason.’”[i] The laws of logic appear to be standardized, set rules for how to think. The laws of logic are important because without them science, and thinking in general, would not even be possible and humans would not able to develop any sort of advancements. Without the laws of logic, one would not even be able to debate or argue, such as we are doing now. Many believe that humans have evolved and developed and are now able to understand (the development and use) those laws. Yet some believe that God created humans fully developed, intelligent, and with the primary tools of logic from our very creation. What are some of the laws of logic? How did the laws of logic come about? Did their origin come about from an intelligent being like God or could they have come about naturally?   Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer: Everyone uses the laws of logic to prove their points when teaching, or in arguments and debates. There is no scientific understanding of how they originated. They are philosophical concepts and thus science cannot explain or prove them. Some believe that the laws of logic have existed before the universe and some say that at the beginning of the Universe, at the beginning of time, space, and matter, the laws of logic just happened – just like how the earth just happened to develop where it has – naturally. A world in which the laws of logic do not exist “makes no sense.”[ii] Some say that “the categories of logic did not drop from the clouds. These forms have taken shape in the course of the socio-historical development of humankind. They are elementary generalizations of reality, reflected in the minds of men and women.”[iii] The laws of logic are developed and created by man to be able to communicate reasonably with each other. “You don’t need a mind for time to exist, but you do for “September” or “ten o’clock.” And you don’t need a mind for logic to exist, but you do for the laws of logic.[iv] The laws of logic exist in the human mind because of human intelligence. “The universe isn’t subject to any laws of logic. The universe merely exists.”[v] Some also suggest that the laws of logic have developed (or merely exist) due to the sophisticated chemical make-up of the evolved human brain. Those with higher levels and abilities of logic and reasoning may even be more evolved. A law of logic is “not a physical thing. But it is not a non-physical thing either. It is not an entity of any sort. It is a rule that can be expressed in the form of a hypothetical imperative: “If you have ‘if p, then q,’ and you have...

Read More

Modern Physics – Creation Perspective

Posted on Oct 15, 2014 in Marianis from the Front, The Biggest Challenges to Evolution | 0 comments

  Creation Answer: Physics (and math) have been discovered, not evolved. Naturalism can’t explain why physics and math are the way they are. Some naturalists don’t see this as a problem, because the fact that these mathematical and physical laws and principles exist is proof that they had to have formed to make the universe. “It’s perfect just because it is” isn’t a satisfactory answer. Naturalism doesn’t have an answer for how or why the laws of physics exist. “Quantum mechanics [QM] really works, and has been strongly supported by experiment. The history and practice of QM shows no hidden motivation to attack a biblical world view, in contrast to uniformitarian geology and evolutionary biology.”[i] Naturalists believe that the use of modern physics does, and will, give further evidence that there is no God and that they don’t need God. But from a creationist perspective, modern physics does, and will, continue to show the complexity of life and the universe , attesting to the fact that there is a supreme creator, an intelligence behind it all. Humankind will never catch up to the information hidden and evident within existence and that is a testimony to God’s wonderful omniscience. God has planned all of these things out, because He is all-knowing and all-powerful. In response to Stephen Hawking’s conclusion that there is no need for a creator, he places his faith in the idea that because of quantum mechanics, particles can “pop” into existence out of nothing. “So is it possible that the universe just popped into existence out of the vacuum through nothing more than a quantum fluctuation? Some people think so, although they seem to conveniently forget that the laws of quantum physics would have had to already be in existence, so one could not say that the universe created itself ‘out of nothing’. Others have pointed out, however, that the lifetime of quantum events is inversely proportional to the mass of the object and this precludes any such cosmological quantum event. If a universe did pop into existence by quantum fluctuation, nobody would notice—the lifetime of a quantum event the size of our universe would be less than 10-103 seconds. Moreover, virtual particles today appear within the vacuum of space. In the primordial singularity there was no space and so no vacuum.”[ii] Hawking also assumes that God has to act within time to create the universe. Hawking’s definition of God is flawed, in that, God is actually timeless and spaceless, not being limited by those constraints. Hawking and Naturalism still can’t explain the origin of the law of causality, the laws of physics, as well as numerous other laws and concepts. “This inability to provide a cogent replacement for God as the source of scientific law is hardly surprising. Once you dismiss the concept of a Creator God who is not only a living supernatural being, but one who is...

Read More

Modern Physics – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

Posted on Oct 14, 2014 in Marianis from the Front, The Biggest Challenges to Evolution | 0 comments

  Introduction: Modern Physics is the extension of previous levels of physics and is therefore the study of the fundamental and “weird” interactions that occur in our universe. Sir Isaac Newton really founded the study of physics by his understanding of gravity and forces (now called Newtonian or Classical Physics) and since then, modern physics has taken our understanding to a whole new level. Quantum Mechanics was developed based on the research of atoms and subatomic particles. Quantum Mechanics gets its name from the discovery that energy within atoms is quantized, meaning that the smallest amounts of energy come in small packets or quanta (like integers – only 1, 2, 3, etc), rather than any variable amount of energy (like 2.63 or 5.41 or anywhere in between). Initial research was based on blackbody radiation, the photoelectric effect, and the atomic nature of elements. There are now “several classes of phenomena called ‘quantum effects.’” Some of the conclusions from the new physics can breach on the weird and paradoxical, as we shall see. In Quantum Mechanics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that at any given time, you simply cannot know both the position and velocity of an electron. You can know only one, or the other, at any given time and therefore you will not be able to tell where it will be later. The Wave-Particle Duality says that light and electrons act as both a wave and a particle, which seems contradictory and very mysterious. Because particles can have wave properties, quantum tunneling (a particle can instantaneously jump across a solid barrier) is thought to be possible. This phenomenon is theorized to be part of brain activity.[i] Quantum Entanglement is possible in that two or more particles can be in the same quantum state and then, even when separated by a great distance, when one of the particles is acted on, the other(s) is simultaneously affected. Because of Quantum Entanglement, Quantum Teleportation may be possible by acting on one of the entangled particles, which will then cause a reaction of the other entangled particle and thus we may be able to send information, or particles, with potentially “faster than light communication methods.” This means that you could change something locally and instantly affect the universe some distance away without any time needed for the information to travel that distance.[ii] Two quantum effects are observable on the macroscopic scale with superconductors and superfluids. Superconductors can be created, at the right temperature, to cause the material to have no electrical resistance and therefore able to magnetically levitate. Also, if again we are at the right temperature, superfluids will have no viscosity.[iii] If none of that seems weird to you yet, consider the most common interpretation of quantum mechanics… the Copenhagen Interpretation.  This interpretation suggests that particles exist in all of the possible quantum states, but when the particle is observed, then the quantum wave function collapses, meaning that you only end...

Read More

Strong Magnetic Fields – Creation Perspective

Posted on Oct 3, 2014 in Marianis from the Front, The Biggest Challenges to Evolution | 0 comments

  Creation Answer: According to the National Geomagnetic Initiative, “the mechanism for generating the geomagnetic field remains one of the central unresolved problems in geosciences.”[i] “Magnetism is almost as much of a puzzle now as it was when William Gilbert (1544-1603) wrote his classic text, ‘Concerning Magnetism, Magnetic Bodies, and the Great Magnet, Earth’ in 1600.”[ii] “What a planet needs in order to produce a strong magnetic field is (1) a liquid conducting (metallic) interior and (2) rapid rotation to get the conducting material moving about.”[iii] The magnetic field is based on the amount of the liquid swirling within the earth. The faster the moving currents, the stronger the magnetic field would be. “If the liquid interior becomes solid or if the rotation slows down, the magnetic field will weaken.”[iv] Over time, the earth, like most things, has been cooling and its rotation slowing so the magnetic field is expected to weaken. Naturalism needs a way for magnetic fields to continually recharge, and this they call the Dynamo effect. “Currents create a magnetic field–a distribution of magnetic forces–and the essence of the self-sustaining dynamo problem is to find solutions such that the resulting magnetic field is also the input field required for generating the current in the first place…Actually, that is only the lowest level of the problem, in which one is free to prescribe the motions. To solve the full problem, we also need information about the heat sources, and these sources must be able to drive motions which also solve the dynamo problem.”[v] “Scientists are still not sure about what provides the heat in the Earth’s core. It might come from some of the iron becoming solid and joining the inner core, or perhaps it is generated by radioactivity, like the heat of the Earth’s crust.” [vi] “Such problems are not easy. They involve intricate mathematics and are not yet fully solved.” [vii] “Evolutionary dynamo theories do not have a good explanation for the rapid decay of the field.”[viii] The Earth’s magnetic field must have been much stronger in the past, and in fact it has weakened, at a minimum, of about 7% since the first recordings in 1827. By knowing the intensity, one can calculate the amount of electrical energy as well. Based on the Dynamic Decay theory, which is a creation model of the magnetic fields, the intensity and energy are both noticeably going down and it fits with both a young earth and global flood model.[ix] “Archaeomagnetism” is the study of the magnetization of bricks, pottery, campfire stones, and other man-related objects studied by archaeologists…the data show that the field intensity at the earth’s surface fluctuated wildly up and down during the third millennium before Christ. A final fluctuation slowly increased the intensity until it reached a peak (50% higher than today) at about the time of Christ. Then it began a slowly accelerating decrease. By about...

Read More

Strong Magnetic Fields – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

Posted on Oct 1, 2014 in Marianis from the Front, The Biggest Challenges to Evolution | 1 comment

Introduction: The earth and many other planets, and even the sun, currently retain very strong magnetic fields. Over time those magnetic fields should have weakened. Is there a phenomenon that can recharge dying magnetic fields? How are these magnetic fields formed? Are magnetic fields formed naturally or designed by God for our protection? How do the magnetic fields really affect earth? What does the evidence tell us about the age of the earth and the universe?   Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer: The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and its magnetic field is due to the movement of charged metals within the earth’s liquid outer core. This moving of charged metals will always form a magnetic field around them naturally. The earth formed with swirling currents of hot, molten rock, which simultaneously created magnetic fields associated with the swirling mass. So the earth has always had a strong magnetic field, and for that matter, magnetic fields have probably formed around most, if not all, other astronomical objects as well. The human body even has a slight magnetic field. The earth’s magnetic field has a positive impact on this planet as it shields harmful solar and celestial radiation from entering our atmosphere. Over earth’s history, the chaotic currents are like a “dynamo” inside the earth, which is always moving and causing the magnetic field to change constantly and these “magnetic fields morph and push and pull at one another.” From ocean sediment cores and surveys and the fossil record, magnetic fields are recorded in the rocks and specifically show that the poles even occasionally flip, making the north pole the south pole and then back again. This pole reversal happens “about every 200,000 to 300,000 years, although it has been more than twice that long since the last reversal.” “Scientists estimate reversals have happened at least hundreds of times over the past three billion years,” and each reversal may take a few thousand years. Fortunately, these pole reversals don’t appear to cause environmental problems or exposure to harmful radiation , since there still is a magnetic field, it is just changing.[i] The earth’s magnetic field has actually weakened by 10% since the 19th century, but University of California professor Gary Glatzmaier says that “the field is increasing or decreasing all the time.” “We know this from studies of the paleomagnetic record.” He also explains that that 10% is a relatively small amount of change and that “Earth’s present-day magnetic field is, in fact, much stronger than normal…twice (as much as) the million-year average.”[ii]   by Brian Mariani and others   Is the above correct? Do you evolutionists agree with this position? I have tried to write it as you believe it. Do you have any disagreements or concerns or additions?   Before commenting, please read the following disclosures. Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are...

Read More