In 1984, when no space craft had yet reached Uranus and Neptune, I published a theory predicting the strength of the magnetic fields of those two planets in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, a peer-reviewed creationist scientific journal. I made the predictions on the basis of my hypotheses that (A) the raw material of creation was water (based on II Peter 3:5, "the earth was formed out of water and by water"), and (B) at the instant God created the water molecules, the spins of the hydrogen nuclei were all pointing in a particular direction.
58 comments
I always think that the words "peer reviewed " in creationist literature are in fact a typo for "pier reviewed", as in they take their works to the end of a pier or jetty, go back to the land and look at them again through a pair of binoculars and if they can still see the pages they are passed for publication.
"a peer-reviewed creationist scientific journal."
Please, stop!!! I can't...breath...for laughing....
[I published a theory...in a peer-reviewed creationist scientific journal...my hypotheses...(based on II Peter 3:5)...]
I guess that explains why we've never heard of you before.
Where'd you say you got your Ph.D, again?
I once published a theory predicting gravity on the basis of my hypothesis of gravity elves, and what do you know, there is such a thing as gravity. Explain that one away, agravityelfists!
I see you had already reached Uranus in 1984 or earlier.
You had to, in order to pull this shit out of it.
"Creation Research Society Quarterly, a peer-reviewed creationist scientific journal."
BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!
Translation: "reviewed by other idiots."
Well, did the Voyager 2 data support your hypothesis?
Did you even bother reading the Voyager 2 data?
Any "peer reviewers" from NASA or JPL?
A peer-reviewed creationist scientific journal?
BWAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA.......
Oh shit, I think I just peed a little.
Does anybody know whether this alleged 1984 journal article is available online, or in libraries? He has made a factual claim that can be tested and I, for one, am curious.
Just because water comes out of your UR anus, doesn't mean a planet is made of it.
Yes, Creation Research Society Quarterly exists: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html
And of course, there is a Statement of Belief:
All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
And a hilarious quote from said "peer-reviewed paper":
To calculate the magnetic moment of a planet at creation, we must know the original material. In the previous article I presented Scriptural evidence that God originally created the Earth as a sphere of pure water. One of the Scriptures is the last part of 2 Peter 3:5 (NASB): ". . . and the earth was formed out of water and by water." Shortly after that, God must have transformed much of the water into other matter, such as iron, silicon, minerals, and rock. Shortly after that, God must have transformed much of the water into other matter, such as iron, silicon, minerals, and rock.
MASSIVE FAIL!!!
"And you were completely wrong, because Uranus and Neptune are made of gases, not water. "
Indeed. In fact, they are comprised of mostly Hydrogen and Helium.
Humphreys is a example of what happens when you let religious dogma to overide science.
Uh huh huh, huh huh, you said "Uranus," huh huh, huh huh!
Gone beyond the thrashing turmoil of stupidity and now lolling languidly in the calm of insanity. (Apologies to Pratchett)
Some definitions:-
D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., = Lives in a humour-free zone, strikes earnest yet pretentious attitude and assumes an expression like a puckered arsehole. Talks codswallop.
Institute for Creation Research = Home of pretentious liars and unscholarly, shoddy clods. Who try slyly to insinuate themselves in to positions of influence.
Hovind = to be become addicted to anal sex.
The Outsider posted this from the articles:
To calculate the magnetic moment of a planet at creation, we must know the original material. In the previous article I presented Scriptural evidence that God originally created the Earth as a sphere of pure water. One of the Scriptures is the last part of 2 Peter 3:5 (NASB): ". . . and the earth was formed out of water and by water." Shortly after that, God must have transformed much of the water into other matter, such as iron, silicon, minerals, and rock. Shortly after that, God must have transformed much of the water into other matter, such as iron, silicon, minerals, and rock.
Sounds to me like "Alchemy for Jeebus".
A peer-reviewed creationist scientific journal? That sounds like several oxymorons fighting with each other. What's your PhD in, and what institution issued it? Did you graduate with Hovind, perhaps?
Most of the mass of the Earth is different minerals and metals, I'd guess, not water. Water is just a thin cover on some of the surface.
What does the water on Earth have to do with the strength of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune?
So, was your "prediction" so far off that real scientists are still laughing, or what?
And the evidence that it was YOUR specific god that did any of this is what, exactly? An ancient text? There are many ancient texts, talking about other gods performing other creation myths. Prove yours is the correct one.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
