Did I get that all right? That seems like a pretty good explanation. So I think that would mean physical jostling (earth quakes) wouldn’t demagnetize the crystals but extreme heat would. I know one issue is that it’s a lot easier to show that something is unstable over a short period of time than stable over a long period of time. Though I think if I could see some experimental data that magnetic crystals hold up to a large amount of abuse I’d be satisfied with that explanation.

The sea floor cooled slowly enough to form small crystals of ferromagnetic compounds that are evident in thin sections. In a crystal, all the molecules are permanently aligned in a specific direction, and the ferromagnetic crystal grows along the lines of the current magnetic field of the earth. When the rock cools, the crystal is permanently frozen in that alignment, along with all the other ferromagnetic crystals. Barring radical metamorphosis, they will continue facing that way until the rock melts again. The magnetc alignment of the rock can last for millions, even billions of years.

Why didn’t I reply? I guess I got tired. What’s the point in a never ending argument? I guess on an intellectual side I could point out that the diamonds have been sitting there for a long time in the old earth time line. I could also reaffirm that samples were taken from all over the world at different depths and all came up with roughly the same c14 amount despite the lack of radiation at their location. I imagine we could eventually get into the fact that diamonds evaporate slowly. But really, where would any of that go?

On the emotional side, I really don’t know what to say. I know a lot of people have good reasons to feel animosity towards Christians because of things that have happened in their past. I know it’s increasingly common to view any religion as the anathema to science and that this view is constantly propounded whether you really have any stake in it or not. I know, in particular, that even without all these obstacles the God of the Bible comes off as being a mean spirited dictator. So who would really want evidence that he exists? No thanks.

I guess I don’t have any good answers on the emotional end other than my silence.

Also, keep in mind there are very few similarities between common sense and science. They are not always related.

This is the conclusion Sanford came to and, once a Darwinian atheist, is now a Christian intelligent design proponent and even a biblical creationist. (ID does not use the bible nor refer to it in any way and it doesn’t need to – it’s just good old fashion common sense, go where the evidence points)

Where did the information in the genome come from in the first place is still a question unsolvable through Darwinian mechanisms. Complex coded information systems simply do not and cannot arise without intelligent design. Code is a symbolic communications conventions and intrinsically implies intelligence.

There is no such thing as code without an underlying mind because that’s what code is – a *conceived* convention of symbolism for functional purpose. Random processes do not and cannot create coded information processing. Purely random processes create chaos not order.

The genome has been deteriorating since the first mutations. Mutations accumulate and cause damage, they do not add new information – they change it or delete it – like deleting 0’s and 1’s in computer code or mutating 0’s into 1’s and vv. Eventually the system will crash.

Obviously then, the creationist view of the world is not so “absurd” at all! or as cosmologist Robert Jastrow (agnostic) said, “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Anyone who can read “Genetic Entropy” and still go away believing in the materialist’s origins myth – neo-Darwinism – must be like Frank Deford who said, “I believe that professional wrestling is clean and everything else in the world is fixed.”

A cat!

I don’t see how micro-evolution is such a strong evidence for evolution as a whole. Nobody denies that micro-evolution happens. M-e examples are probably the most widely cited as proof of evolution, but it seems clear to me that basically all m-e is limited to either built in adaptability (peppered moths) or a mutation that ultimately destroys genetic information and weakens the total fitness (sickle-cell anemia vs malaria).

As for evidence #5, I remember reading somewhere that researchers discovered that a lot of supposed junk DNA was remarkably similar between mice and humans. That ENCODE project also indicates that DNA isn’t actually junky.

Evidence #6 basically just says that lots of smart people believe the previous evidence. I wouldn’t call it evidence on it’s own.