Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Humphreys' Crazy YEC Arguments (was: To List and Todd Greene)

Expand Messages
  • Todd S. Greene
    In this post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/22950 ... Hi, King. I already corrected you on this. I wrote about 6,000 years, and I quoted for you
    Message 1 of 7 , Jun 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      In this post
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/22950
      King Davis wrote:

      > I have admited to Todd, that I believe in a young earth, not
      > because he accused Arthur and I of saying the earth was 6,000
      > years old. Neither Arthor or I said that.

      Hi, King.

      I already corrected you on this. I wrote "about 6,000 years," and I
      quoted for you the context of my discussion which made it absolutely
      clear that I was referring to the standard young earth creationist
      position of around "six to ten thousand years." I fully realize that
      there are a few young earth creationists who pad an extra few
      thousand years onto that, such that you say as much as 12,000 years,
      and Arthur (I didn't realize he went by his second name, but if
      that's so then I'm changing over) says as much as 15,000 years.
      While I'm a little curious what the basis is for your differing
      upper range values, with respect to my discussion of young earth
      creationism and the relevant science involved, your differing upper
      range ages are irrelevant, because with respect to the relevant
      science 15,000 years and 12,000 years is just as absurd as 10,000
      years. This is something I have also already pointed out to you. I'm
      also noting here that you also accept the standard lower range value
      of 6,000 years, and this 6,000 years comes from one place and one
      place only: summing the years given in the genealogies in Genesis
      chapters 5 and 11.

      > I do believe
      > the earth is in the range of 6 to 12,000 years old and
      > evidence for such. And no evidence for millions of years old
      > and Todd and evolunist believe, to the contrary evidence ar
      > many natural phenomen which conflick with the evoulutionary
      > idea that the earth of billions of years old. Also many
      > scientic reasons. Todd has accused me of rhetoric with no back
      > up.

      Yes, King, because up until this post all you did was offer empty
      assertions.

      > Again, there are
      > many things that conflick with Todd's reasoning and don't have
      > the time or space to name them all, but will list a few, maybe
      > a part 1 and part 2 & 3! Todd you may answer if possible,
      > cause this is not rhetoric. The point is that the numbers
      > required by evolutionary theory is axium possible ages but are
      > much less than the evolutionary ages, while I think the
      > biblical ages (6-10,000 years) always comfortably within the
      > maximum possible ages.

      I can't tell what your sentence here even means, because it's rather
      garbled.

      > Therefore, the following
      > items are evidences against the evolutionary time-scale and
      > for the biblical time-scale.

      I'm not sure where exactly you cribbed these from, because you did
      not provide proper attribution, but it's from an article by young
      earth creationist Russell Humphreys, and it's used on these four web
      pages (as well as in many versions on many, many different websites):

      "Evidence for a young world"
      by Russell Humphreys
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
      http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html
      http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-384.htm
      http://www.creationism.org/articles/HumphreysYoungWorld.pdf

      As I dig into these young earth creationist arguments, I want you to
      know that I do appreciate the fact that at least you have offered
      some substantive arguments this time. (The empty assertions were
      becoming quite boring!) You will not that post represents my *short*
      response, though I understand that we may dig into the details of
      any one of these different topics in follow-up discussion.

      > 1. NOT ENOUGH MUD ON THE SEA FLOOR.
      > Each year, water & winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt
      > and rock from the continents and deposits it in the ocean.
      > This material accumulates as loose sedement (i.e mud) on hard
      > basaltic (larva formed rock on the ocean floor. The average
      > depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, this is including the
      > continental shelves, is less that 400 metres. I know secular
      > scienfitic litature say the main way to remove the mud is
      > "plate tectonic subduction, that is, sea floor slides slowly
      > (a few cm/yr, beneath the continents taking some sediment with
      > it. And this process according to the scientist presently
      > removes only 1 billion tons a year, the other 25 billion tons
      > per year simply accumulates. At this rate, erosion would
      > deposit the present amount in less than 12 millions years! Yet
      > accordig to the evolutionary theory, erosion and plate
      > subduction have been going on as long as the oceans existed,
      > an alleged 3 billon years. If this were so, the rates above
      > imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud
      > dozens of kilometers deep! Do you see the point? Fact all mud
      > is less than 400 metres compared to dozens of kilometers deep.
      > (Creatonist) explanation is that the erosion of the Genesiss
      > Flood running off the continents deposited the present amount
      > of mud within a short time about 5000 years ago.

      There are so many errors in this one paragraph, it's hard to know
      where to start digging into it. However, without even getting into
      the specific details of ocean sedimentation (and, believe me, there
      are a lot!), according to the young earth creationist Humphreys the
      sediment in the ocean shows that the ocean has been around about 12
      million years. This demonstrates that the young earth creationist
      notion that the Earth did not exist more than six to ten thousand
      years ago is wrong. Thank you, Dr. Humphreys!

      By the way, here again notice the standard silly young earth
      creationist mistaken reference to "evolutionary theory." It is not
      evolutionary theory that deals with such areas as erosion,
      sedimentation, and plate subduction. These are areas of GEOLOGY, not
      biological evolution. Yet again young earth creationists display
      right in the words they use their utter cluelessness about science.

      > 2. NOT ENOUGH SODIUM IN THE SEA.
      > Every year. rivers and othe sources dump over 450 million tons
      > of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to
      > get back out of the sea each year, (6.7) as far as anyone
      > knows, the remainder accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had
      > no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present
      > amount in less than 42 millin years at today's input and
      > output rates. This is much less than the evolutionary age of
      > the ocean, 3 billion years.

      Here again notice that Humphreys is so utterly clueless about
      science that he thinks he's talking about evolution, when in fact
      he's really talking about GEOLOGY.

      By the way, notice that in this article published in 1990

      http://tccsa.tc/articles/ocean_sodium.html

      Humphreys says it's at most 62 million years rather than 42 million
      years. So which is it? That's almost a 50% difference. But, anyway,
      if the ocean has been around for 50 million years (according to
      Humphreys), then the young earth creationist notion that the Earth
      did not exist more than six to ten thousand years ago is wrong.
      Thank you, Dr. Humphreys!

      But, King, just so you know, the claim that "only 27% of this sodium
      manages to get back out of the sea each years" is simply wrong. The
      details of this are explained quite thoroughly by the former young
      earth creationist and now professional GEOLOGIST Glenn Morton, in
      the following open letter to Steve Austin and Russell Humphreys in
      response to their article on this topic:

      "Salt in the sea" (June 15, 1996)
      by Glenn Morton
      http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html

      > 3. EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD IS DECAYING TOO FAST.
      > The total energy stored in the Earth's magnetic field has
      > steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1,000
      > years. Evolutionist cannot explain this rapid decrease, as
      > well as how the Earth could have maintained it's magnetic
      > field for billions of years.

      This is a completely ignorant argument. We have known since the
      1960s that the Earth's magnetic field fluctuates and even reverses
      polarity over time. This information is recorded in magnetized
      minerals in rocks in the ocean floor spreading out from the mid-
      ocean ridges, in what is called "magnetic striping." See the
      following:

      This Dynamic Earth: the Story of Plate Tectonics
      Chapter 2: Developing the theory
      (U.S. GEOLOGICAL Survey, 1996)
      http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/developing.html

      Note again Humphreys' utterly clueless reference to "evolutionists"
      rather than GEOLOGISTS when discussing a field of GEOLOGY. Isn't it
      horrible how young earth creationists don't even know the difference
      between biology and geology?

      > 4. And the presence of magnetic fields around solar system
      > bodies (Mercury, Jupiter's moon Ganymede, Neptune, Uranus).
      > No natural process is known which could sustain a magnetic
      > field around these bodies - their magnetic fields should have
      > and would have decayed out of existence if they ever had any
      > (over millions of years).

      The statement "No natural process is known which could sustain a
      magnetic field around these bodies" is simply a false statement.

      Moffatt (1978), Parker (1979), and of course the newest edition of
      Merrill and McElhinny.

      http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/012491246X

      Lectures on Solar and Planetary Dynamos (1994)
      edited by M. R. E. Proctor, A. D. Gilbert, and H. K. Moffatt
      http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521467047

      > 5. SHRINKING SUN - Sun may be shrinking a few feet each year.
      > Can't extrapolate this trend back to the very far without
      > effection earth's enviroment. But to think the sun is
      > shrinking a few feet a years and had been for millions and
      > billions of years, can one imagine the size of the sun that
      > long ago? And at that size it would burn the earth up!

      This is a particularly stupid argument. Really.

      Look at what it says: "Sun may be shrinking a few feet each year."

      Let's use 5 feet for "a few feet" and do the calculations.

      1. Average distance from Sun to Earth: 93 million miles
      2. 1 mile = 5,280 feet
      3. Time for sun to shrink 1 mile: 1,056 years
      4. Shrinkage distance in 4.5 billion years: ~4.3 million miles
      5. Fact: Currently the Earth's distance from the Sun varies by
      approximately 3 million miles in the course of the year.

      Like I said, this is a really stupid argument.

      > 6. Argument from human population growth. If humans had been
      > around more than a few thousand years, they would have
      > populated the earth more quickly.

      Says who? This is a naked assertion with nothing to back it up.
      Additionally, the facts are that the growth rate of the human
      population today is substantially greater than it used to be, due to
      technological advances. This argument is based on ignoring history
      and archaeology. Oh yeah, that's right, young earth creationist do
      love to ignore the historical and scientific facts, so no surprise
      here.

      > [7]. Argument from absence of large numbers of tombs. Humans
      > bury their dead, even in the "stone age" societies, but large
      > numbers of tombs are not found.

      This is called "stretching" things quite a bit. "Even in the stone
      age" most people didn't make tombs. They buried their dead in the
      ground. The vast majority of these bodies would simply decay away -
      just like bodies of dead humans over the past 6,000 years. Ancient
      tombs that are found and examined by archaeologists today rarely
      have bodies, and their preservation is due to special circumstances
      (cases like the 5,300 year old body of the "Iceman" found in the
      moutains between Austria and Italy, due to the frozen environment).
      Archaeologists have found pretty much what they expect to find,
      based on reality. This argument is nothing more than trying to make
      a mountains out of a divot (no, not even a molehill!).

      > [8]. High concentrqation of Uranium-236 on the moon should
      > have decayed and of Thorium-230 both should have decayed.

      This is another particularly stupid argument. Really.

      Thorium-230 (half-life ~75,000 years) is produced as a radioactive
      decay chain product of Uranium-238 (half-life ~4.5 billion years).
      Thus, the decay chain of U-238 is continually producing new Th-230!

      Uranium-236 (half-life ~23 million years) and is produced by
      exposure of Uranium-235 (half-life ~700 million years) to the solar
      wind and cosmic rays, thus, while not much, U-236 is also being
      continually produced on the moon!

      Note that while I'm explaining just how stupid the *argument* is,
      the problem is *not* that young earth creationists themselves are
      stupid. The problem is that young earth creationists make up these
      arguments and regurgitate them *ad nauseum* based on sheer ignorance.

      > Much more but last for now is the evolutonist seem to think
      > there is development from the lower to higher structures, yet
      > the Laws of Thermodynamics ( not guesses but scientic law),
      > teachers that things are decaying and becoming more random.

      King, now you've changed subjects, and you're not even talking about
      the subject of young earth creationism and it's crazy notion that
      the Earth and Universe did not exist more than about six to ten
      thousand years ago. You're trying to refer to the Second Law of
      Thermodynamics in connection with biological evolution, both of
      which young earth creationists love to misrepresent. What you have
      just stated is NOT the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but simply the
      incorrect young earth creationist caricature of it. Again, when it
      comes to the real science, young earth creationist are simply
      clueless.

      > For Christians believe
      > that "In the begining there was God", for the evolutionist,
      > "In the begining there was blan, blank or nothing and nothing
      > got busy and made man, the earth and everything in it?"

      This is a false statement. Moreover, King, I have explained to you
      more than once what is wrong with these statements, so now you are
      simply demonstrating the young earth creationists' penchant for
      lying about matters.

      You have purposely ignored the fact that most Christians accepted
      evolution (and geology) a long time ago. With your statement here
      you purposely ignore the existence of these Christians. This is
      dishonest.

      The Earth did not come from "nothing," and there is not an
      astronomer or geologist on the planet who thinks this. So that's
      just a flat-out lie. And again not that evolution typically is in
      reference to biology and paleontology (the fossil record), whereas
      studying about the formation of the solar system happens to fall
      into areas of ASTRONOMY and GEOLOGY. You young earth creationists
      are so terribly confused.

      > Most of us
      > thought from nothing came nothing, what amazing faith the
      > evolutionist have to believe that from nothing, all that
      > exists came from nothing. We exist, the world exist, Todd have
      > we always existed? If not, then nothing brought us into
      > existance and the world and all that is in it.

      Golly, where do you guys get this crazy nonsense that you spew all
      the time? King, instead of going through some long explanation of
      what all is wrong with the nonsense you've stated here, I'm simply
      going to request that you QUOTE an evolutionist who has written "all
      that exists came from nothing." It certainly doesn't apply to
      *theistic evolutionists*, which many Christians are. Additionally,
      *I* certainly don't say that, and *I* certainly have never stated
      that. And, again, this has nothing to do with the fact that young
      earth creationism is a false doctrine, because it's notion that the
      world did not exist more than just several thousand years ago is
      empirically known to be wrong. If you cannot provide a relevant
      quote, then I think you'd better stop engaging in such
      misrepresentation.

      > More later, but
      > it may take Todd awhile to answer, or maybe just ignore?

      King, who do you think you're kidding? Now we will see just who
      ignores what. Young earth creationists hate the truth, and so they
      ignore it left and right, and from top to bottom, and front and
      back. And they demonstrate this all the time. I look forward to your
      (continuing) demonstration of this.

      Sincerely,
      Todd Greene
      http://www.geocities.com/greeneto
    • Todd S. Greene
      Hi, everyone. Did anyone notice my big goof in my post on Humphreys Crazy YEC Arguments, that I m now noticing? When I was writing this response to King
      Message 2 of 7 , Jun 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi, everyone.

        Did anyone notice my big goof in my post on "Humphreys' Crazy YEC
        Arguments," that I'm now noticing?

        When I was writing this response to King Davis' post (with
        Humphreys' arguments in it), I was keeping notes on various of the
        topics in different text files, and then as I put my response post
        together I was copying-and-pasting in relevant pieces of information
        from these text files. However, somewhere in my copying and pasting
        I screwed up, or forgot to save my change, or something, so that my
        reponse to the particular topic of planets generating their magnetic
        fields only had fragments of a couple of references. Now, in fact, I
        had no comments of my own to add on that particular topic, other
        than the single sentence I wrote (that did make it into the garbled
        response) of "The statement 'No natural process is known which could
        sustain a magnetic field around these bodies' is simply a false
        statement," and all I intended to provide following that sentence
        was a list of references demonstrating this.

        Anyway, here I'm quoting that section and then giving you the
        references I intended to give the first time.

        Regards,
        Todd Greene
        http://www.geocities.com/greeneto


        --- In Maury_and_Baty, Todd Greene wrote (post #6241):
        >
        > In this post
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/22950
        > King Davis wrote:
        [snip]
        >
        >> 4. And the presence of magnetic fields around solar system
        >> bodies (Mercury, Jupiter's moon Ganymede, Neptune, Uranus).
        >> No natural process is known which could sustain a magnetic
        >> field around these bodies - their magnetic fields should have
        >> and would have decayed out of existence if they ever had any
        >> (over millions of years).
        >
        > The statement "No natural process is known which could sustain a
        > magnetic field around these bodies" is simply a false statement.
        [snip]

        Magnetic field generation in electrically conducting fluids (1978)
        by H. Keith Moffat
        Cambridge University Press, London, New York

        Cosmical magnetic fields, their origin and activity: The magnetic
        fields of planets (1979)
        by Eugene N. Parker
        Clarendon Press, Oxford

        The Magnetic Field of the Earth: Paleomagnetism, the Core, and the
        Deep Mantle (1996)
        by Ronald T. Merrill, Michael W. McElhinny, and Phillip L. McFadden
        http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0124912451

        Lectures on Solar and Planetary Dynamos (1994)
        edited by Michael R. E. Proctor, Andrew D. Gilbert, and H. Keith
        Moffatt
        http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521461421

        Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field
        http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm

        When North Goes South
        by Gary Glatzmaier and Paul Roberts
        http://www.psc.edu/science/glatzmaier.html

        Los Alamos researcher named AGU Fellow
        http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php?
        fuseaction=home.story&story_id=1589

        Source of the Earth's Magnetic Field
        by C. Johnson
        http://mb-soft.com/public/tecto2.html
        (This has a good diagram modeling the convection cells of the
        Earth's liquid inner core.)

        Dynamo Theory and Earth's Magnetic Field (2001)
        by Paul Demorest
        http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/~pauld/etc/210BPaper.pdf
        (This is a technical treament of the subject.)
      • Todd S. Greene
        Right after King Davis posted the Russell Humphreys nonsense in the CFTF group, in this post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/22951 the young earth
        Message 3 of 7 , Jun 3, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Right after King Davis posted the Russell Humphreys nonsense in the
          CFTF group, in this post
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/22951
          the young earth creationist Jeffrey Peter commented to King Davis as
          follows: "Don't worry, we know what you believe to be sound; in
          scientific principles and more importantly Scripturally."

          I'm noting how Jeffrey follows the attitude of "Don't bother me with
          the facts, I've already made up my mind," thus demonstrating the
          typical closed-mindedness of young earth creationists. What a shame.

          Of course, Jeffrey could spring a huge surprise on me and acknowledge
          the errors that I've pointed out regarding these arguments by
          Humphreys that King presented, or at least attempt to deal with the
          facts. But somehow, I seriously doubt that.

          Sincerely,
          Todd Greene
          http://www.geocities.com/greeneto
        • rlbaty@webtv.net
          ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/22951 ... Well, that is part of the point I ve been trying to make with my Goliath of GRAS . When push comes
          Message 4 of 7 , Jun 3, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Todd noted:

            > (I)n this (CFTF) post

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/22951

            > the young earth creationist Jeffrey Peter
            > commented to King Davis as follows:

            > > "Don't worry, we know what you
            > > believe to be sound; in scientific
            > > principles and more importantly
            > > Scripturally."

            > I'm noting how Jeffrey follows the attitude
            > of "Don't bother me with the facts, I've
            > already made up my mind," thus
            > demonstrating the typical closed-
            > mindedness of young earth creationists.

            > What a shame.

            Well, that is part of the point I've been trying to make with my
            "Goliath of GRAS". When push comes to shove, the "young-earth,
            creation-science" promoter falls back on the Dr. Fox default:

            > My interpretation of the text trumps
            > any evidence to the contrary.

            In other words, admitting that the "young-earth, creation-science"
            position regarding the real world is not falsifiable with regard to the
            real world evidence.

            Of course, in doing so, they become somewhat disengenous (i.e.,
            dishonest, maybe) in trying to propose at the same time that there are
            still some scientific principles that support their interpretation of
            the text.

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty
          • rlbaty@webtv.net
            ... I didn t! I did go back and look, and if you hadn t said something about there being an error, I still wouldn t have caught it. Silly me! Of course, I
            Message 5 of 7 , Jun 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Todd asked:

              > Did anyone notice my big goof in my
              > post on "Humphreys' Crazy YEC
              > Arguments," that I'm now noticing?

              I didn't!

              I did go back and look, and if you hadn't said something about there
              being an error, I still wouldn't have caught it.

              Silly me! Of course, I don't spend a lot of time on the magnetic field
              issue.

              I hope in such discussions that the disputants get down to a single,
              important point that can be thoroughly explored on a level more of us
              can understand.

              While there is relevance, and great appreciation for, the chasing of all
              of the YEC rabbits, on a practical level there is only so much time,
              talent and interest that some of us have to spend.

              Come to think of it, that is why I took the time to conduct my own
              empirical tests over the years. I've got the results of my tests and
              they have held up quite well as demonstrations that the "young-earth,
              creation-science" positions cannot be sustained and some of the
              promoters of the same are quite less than open and honest in dealing
              with the issues.

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty

              P.S. Todd - did you get the private e-mail I sent to your Yahoo! address
              containing a copy of your debate e-mail that I forwarded to Dr. Fox?

              #########################
            • Todd S. Greene
              Hi, Robert. In post #6254 you ask, Todd - did you get the private e-mail I sent to your Yahoo! address containing a copy of your debate e-mail that I
              Message 6 of 7 , Jun 3, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi, Robert.

                In post #6254 you ask, "Todd - did you get the private e-mail I sent
                to your Yahoo! address containing a copy of your debate e-mail that I
                forwarded to Dr. Fox?"

                Yes, I see that now. Thanks for doing that. I didn't realize Marion
                was in the membership list, I could have sent him a copy myself. I'll
                keep this in mind for next time (if there's a next time!).

                Regards,
                Todd Greene
              • Todd S. Greene
                In this post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/22950 King Davis posted several young earth creationist argument used by Dr. D. Russell Humphreys. In
                Message 7 of 7 , Jun 5, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  In this post
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/22950
                  King Davis posted several young earth creationist argument used by
                  Dr. D. Russell Humphreys.

                  In these posts
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/6241
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/6251
                  (the second post contains a correction to my first post)
                  I explained the reasons why none of these arguments were any good for
                  supporting young earth creationism (indeed, some of the arguments by
                  Humphreys actually argued for the Earth being at least several
                  million years old!!!).

                  King Davis responded to me as follows:

                  ----------------------------------------------------------------

                  > Todd
                  >
                  > Sorry but you did as expected and just dismissed all points,
                  > which I knew you would.

                  Hi, King.

                  You're right. I don't accept false statements and false arguments.

                  > You did not deal with thermodynic laws which state the opposite
                  > of what you believe, these laws teach that things are going down
                  > hill while you and evolutionistist think things are going from a
                  > lower state to a higher. I think Jeffrey could see that, nor did
                  > you deal with our existance, go ahead and tell me we evolved out
                  > of the water and on up the chain of evolution. But that goes
                  > against the laws of science mention about!

                  First of all, you changed the subject and started talking about
                  evolution, instead of about the geological fact and the astronomical
                  fact that the Earth and the Universe have been around a lot longer
                  than just several thousand years.

                  Second, you did not state any thermodynamics laws. You gave a young
                  earth creationist statement that is NOT a thermodynamics law, and
                  then you PRETENDED that what you stated was the same thing as the
                  thermodynamics law, even though it isn't. You have chosen to ignore
                  this error that I have pointed out. If you seriously think that my
                  criticism on this point is incorrect, then what you should be doing
                  is working to back up your statement by stating the Second Law of
                  Thermodynamics as it is actually stated by scientists, instead of
                  using your gobbledygook caricature of it, and then trying to show
                  that biological evolution is somehow contradicted by the Second Law.
                  But you and I both know that you will never do any such thing, we
                  both know that you will continue to ignore my criticism of your
                  argument, because we both know that you cannot do what I just told
                  you you must do to make your argument really work.

                  Maybe you didn't realize this, King, but in a real discussion about
                  science you don't just get to make things up and pretend whatever you
                  like. It doesn't work that way.

                  > I would like you permission to see send Dr. Humphrey what you
                  > have said about his "crazy YEC Arguments, will that be OK with
                  > you?
                  >
                  > In Christ,
                  > King

                  You don't need my permission, and if this is something you want to do
                  then, please, by all means do it.

                  ----------------------------------------------------------------

                  King also added another response when I corrected my goof by posting
                  the references related to how a planet generates a magnetic field.

                  ----------------------------------------------------------------

                  > Todd
                  >
                  > There you go again, all you can do is state in response to me
                  > is "that is a false statement."

                  You are wrong, King. In addition to stating, "The statement 'No
                  natural process is known which could sustain a magnetic field around
                  these bodies' is simply a false statement," I then provided numerous
                  references on the subject. You are pretending that they don't exist.
                  But obviously they do.

                  > Again, what about me getting Dr. Humphreys involve, is that OK
                  > with you or are you afraid to meet to ane you have been accusing?
                  > Second, would you be willing to engage in a public debate with a
                  > YEC, you can affirm that the earth is millions of years and and
                  > deny the 6-10,000 years old?
                  >
                  > Await to hear from you.
                  > In Christ,
                  > King

                  Yes, King, do it!

                  What I'm noticing is that YOU have ignored the errors I have pointed
                  out and that YOU have failed to even try to deal with these errors.

                  In your previous post you wrote:

                  >>> More later, but
                  >>> it may take Todd awhile to answer, or maybe just ignore?

                  Of course, instead I responded right away and certainly did NOT
                  ignore your crazy arguments, even though you continuously keep
                  insinuating otherwise. Your insinuations are dishonest, and I'm tired
                  of them. Stop it. Golly, do you guys learn these dishonesty tactics
                  at some kind of special school for young earth creationists? They
                  seem to be so popular with you guys. And I responded to you with

                  >> King, who do you think you're kidding? Now we will see just who
                  >> ignores what. Young earth creationists hate the truth, and so
                  >> they ignore it left and right, and from top to bottom, and
                  >> front and back. And they demonstrate this all the time. I look
                  >> forward to your (continuing) demonstration of this.

                  King, are YOU going to continue to ignore the errors I have pointed
                  out in these arguments that YOU presented, just as you have
                  completely ignored these errors in the two responses you sent me?
                  Because if you ignore the errors in your arguments, you will be
                  proving my prophecy about you.

                  Sincerely,
                  Todd Greene
                  http://www.geocities.com/greeneto
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.