• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Creationist takes credit for Uranus' magnetic field

technoextreme

Illuminator
technoextreme
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
3,785
Space exploration has shown how special the earth is and how hostile the rest of the universe is to life. Some measurements have born out what biblical creation suggests about space. For instance, the creation physicist Russ Humphreys predicted, based on the Genesis creation account, the magnetic fields of the planets Uranus and Neptune. His predictions were born out by Voyager. In contrast, evolutionary scientists had failed to correctly predict the magnetic fields of those planets.
Click to expand...
Oo boy.
I wonder what part of the bible says Uranus has a magnetic field... Not only that but the basic premise is wrong. We still haven't ruled out life on other planets in this solar system.
PS. Please put this in the appropriate section if this doesn't belong in the science section.
 
Teh bioligits cant' even predict teh magicnetic fields around yeranus!!!111eleventyone!!

I'm sure all the biologists are absolutely devastated they aren't doing astrophysics and planetology.
 
Schneibster said:
Teh bioligits cant' even predict teh magicnetic fields around yeranus!!!111eleventyone!!

I'm sure all the biologists are absolutely devastated they aren't doing astrophysics and planetology.
Click to expand...
I think they are using it as a slight.
 
The IDiot who wrote that is promoted as a full professor of astronomy.

Another quote from the article

Some attribute the decline of NASA to the change in leadership in the early 1970s when the former German scientists retired. As a devout Christian of impeccable character, von Braun opposed evolution, but after his death NASA began to pursue evolutionary ideas.
Click to expand...

Impeccable character? This guy has never listened to Tom Lehrer.
 
technoextreme said:
Oo boy.
I wonder what part of the bible says Uranus has a magnetic field... Not only that but the basic premise is wrong. We still haven't ruled out life on other planets in this solar system.
PS. Please put this in the appropriate section if this doesn't belong in the science section.
Click to expand...
Apparently, he got it from 2nd Peter:
An Interview with Russel Humphreys
Back in 1983 I published a paper in the Creation Research Society Quarterly I think it was the December issue of that year, "The Creation of the Earth's Magnetic Field." My jumping off point was a verse in 2 Pet. 3, where it says that the earth was formed out of water and by means of water. And that said to me that since the earth is not water now, God must have transformed the water into all the other stuff we see around us: iron, silicon, but I thought of a way that He could make the earth's magnetic field while it was still water. If He had lined up all the protons you know the two hydrogen atoms, the two nuclei that are protons; if He created the water with the two protons all pointing in the same direction and all the water molecules, all its protons, all pointing in the same direction, then you would get a magnetic field which is just about the right amount you needed if the earth is 6,000 years old, and some decay has taken place. So that struck me as kind of interesting. If you're God and you're going to make a magnetic field, here's a real easy way to do it. When you create the water molecules, create the protons all pointing in the same direction.
Click to expand...
 
Humphreys' original paper is available online, at The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields. I haven't read it yet, but he claims to explain (using a model in which all planets and moons were made of "aligned water" 6000 years ago) why Mercury and Earth have a magnetic field, but Mars and the Moon do not. This should be interesting...
 
Gee 10 posts, and still not one Klingon joke - you guys are definately slipping
 
HappyCat said:
This literally made me laugh out loud.
Click to expand...

To be fair this stuff is to keep the faithful toeing the line rather than make any impression on those who know anything about scientific disciplines. FFS! he might as well say that that Uranus is not as cold as Modern Language experts had predicted.

It is funny though :)
 
Answers in Genesis, huh? Aren't these the same people who claim that their followers SHOULDN'T cite Kent Hovind, who claims that "stellar evolution" and "planetary evolution" are "tenants" of ToE proper?

Apparently, they have to take up the slack now that Kent is rotting in prison where he belongs.
 
Acleron said:
Impeccable character? This guy has never listened to Tom Lehrer.
Click to expand...

Or talked to someone who survived the Mittlebau-Dora concentration camp.

Or a Briton who survived a V2 missile attack.

Now, that's not to say that Von Braun didn't provide positive contributions to science and technology. However, to hold him up as a "devout Christian of impeccable character" in light of his obvious and grevious misdeeds speaks volumes on the moral bankruptcy of Christianity.
 
Last edited:
Acleron said:
The IDiot who wrote that is promoted as a full professor of astronomy.
Click to expand...

Danny Faulkner is a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of South Carolina Lancaster.
Click to expand...
That more or less explains it... y'all.

Also, note that the article doesn't say were Faulkner got his Ph.D. According to his bio on AiG...

Education
  • B.S., Bob Jones University, Greenville, SC, 1976
  • M.S., Clemson University, Clemson, SC, 1979
  • M.A., Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 1983
  • Ph.D., Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 1989
Click to expand...
Dear reason, I hate to see what the science cirriculum at Bob Jones is like.

Science 101: God Didit.
Science 234: God Didit... Again.
Science 376: Famous Christian Scientists, From Jesus To Kent Hovind.
Science456: How To Make A Real Graduate School Think You're An Actual Scientist Instead Of A Theologian In A Lab Coat.
 
Last edited:
Mark A. Siefert said:
That more or less explains it... y'all.

Also, note that the article doesn't say were Faulkner got his Ph.D. According to his bio on AiG...

Dear reason, I hate to see what the science cirriculum at Bob Jones is like.

Science 101: God Didit.
Science 234: God Didit... Again.
Science 376: Famous Christian Scientists, From Jesus To Kent Hovind.
Science456: How To Make A Real Graduate School Think You're An Actual Scientist Instead Of A Theologian In A Lab Coat.
Click to expand...
I'm actually surprised by this, he has decent credentials. Don't bad mouth the University of South Carolina, they have the #1 International Business program in the country for undergraduates and the National Science Foundation ranks them #38 in chemistry and biochemistry federally funded research. Feel free to make fun of Bob Jones all you want though, they were founded in 1927 and only accredited in 2005.
 
Von Braun was a Rocketman first, a German second and I don't suppose he was a Nazi at all in terms of actual belief in the ideology. I suspect he would have rained high explosive on Berlin as happily, had he been born a bit further west. He just wanted to build rockets.

This is no excuse and indeed amoral if not immoral, but I find it disturbingly understandable.


 
Soapy Sam said:
Von Braun was a Rocketman first, a German second and I don't suppose he was a Nazi at all in terms of actual belief in the ideology. I suspect he would have rained high explosive on Berlin as happily, had he been born a bit further west. He just wanted to build rockets.

This is no excuse and indeed amoral if not immoral, but I find it disturbingly understandable.


Click to expand...

NOBODY in Germany in 1946 had EVER been a Nazi.
 
Creationist reasoning:

"If it has been proven wrong, say evolution claimed it was true and the Bible said it was false"

"If it was true, say the Bible predicted it first. Use whatever interpretations possible no matter how vague"

"Do all of these post hoc and never make predictions"
 
My initial thought was, "my anus doesn't have a magnetic field," but I decided to respond somewhat more seriously. Not to mention that no cretinist is ever going to get close enough to my anus to measure its magnetic field, much less take credit for it. =:0

I suppose measuring my anus' magnetic field has at least some claim to be physiology, which might be biology, though it certainly doesn't have much connection to evolution I can see (of course, since I can't see my anus, I can't be absolutely sure of that).

Finally, I have to note that since we're talking about anuses, it appears we've found the origin of all those "I found it!" posters from the 1970s, and it further appears that they DID use both hands and a mirror.

Back to your regular programming... err, conversation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom