29 Dec '11 23:56>3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsMy point is that regardless of the strength of the refutation, you accept your original link as 100% proof which cannot possibly be refuted (i.e. that magnetic field strength has been decreasing at a constant proportional rate). Yet there is still vast amounts of evidence in other areas which does prove that this planet and the universe is much more than 6,000 years old (e.g. evidence from radioactive decay, light reaching us from stars which are more than 6,000 light years away, fossil evidence, DNA evidence). A combination of scientific work in biology, nuclear physics, relativity and astrophysics done all the time that you can't even carry out if all of this was incorrect.
APPARENTLY, I am not as stupid as some who will accept this kind of
so-called refutation. I did not refute it because it makes no sense
and it does not refute anything than requires me to refute. Crazy, huh?
😏
I can just about accept why many people will believe in old Earth creationism as well as evolution (something I do not agree with, by the way, but that will be digressing), but belief in young Earth creationism is completely beyond comprehension.
EDIT: It is also certainly possible to work out what the magnetic field strength was at certain points in history. Are you suggesting you cannot work out how old a tree is by just chopping it down? Even if you weren't around hundreds of years ago to be able to plant it?