Earth's Magnetic Field

 

Did you know?

The Earth's magnetic field deflects 1.5 million tons of solar material ejected from the sun at 100 miles per second every single second.
pic.twitter.com/VTdQE8bJ58

— Interesting STEM (@InterestingSTEM) August 5, 2025

There Is An Invisible Shield Around Earth Humans Created By Accident

Planets viewed from Earth as if they were at the distance of our moon [Video]

Planets viewed from Earth as if they were at the distance of our moon [Video]

Related articles

• Size Of A Planet (e-clecticism.blogspot.com)
• If Planets Were the Moon (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)

FacePalm of th Day #135 - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will? Part 4

Wow. For someone who claims to be very busy,  Johnny P spends a lot of time writing things that makes sense ignoring what I have fully said. This won't change anything. He's thickheaded but I'll try any way.  My comments are in red and his are in black.  More FacePalming fun,

Look, I genuinely think you are being a bit delusional here, and let me explain why. You seem to have opinions of your logical argumentation that exceed reality. Take the simple premise “God is perfect”. You wasted time equivocating on the meaning of this word without realising that it wasn’t important to the argument at all. You could have substituted perfect with A and followed that God created A-ly. All things in the universe (tsunamis etc) merely contribute to the notion that the world is A.

The meaning of "perfect" is not a irrelevant.  If we don't agree on what "perfect" means an argument that depends on describing reality, the world, or God makes no sense. The reason you think it doesn't matter because then you are free to poor whatever meaning you want into it and play around. I'm interested in making rational arguments and common ground is needed. I can see that we are not using the same definitions so I wanted to do was clarify what you mean. You are the one who said philosophy was needed to establish epistemology - how do we know what we say we know. You have refused to do that and then claim I am delusional. Cute.

And then you spout nonsense like this: “Too hot for you”

I apologize that I obviously offended you. But what other conclusion do you expect me to draw. All I have gotten from you were attacks about how I don't understand what you are saying when I have clearly stated what you are saying, answered your questions, and you ignore mine. Either this is too much for you or you don't understand what I am saying. Which is it?

The reason I am refusing to continue debating you is because, not only do you keep making blunders as above, but you make comments like this:

Johnny P, you say will refuse to debate me and then go on for several more paragraphs. You'd have more time it you would directly answer me. 

“I'm saying that God in his omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscent chose to create a life-sustaining universe that now has plate tectonics. When the earth was first formed - there was one land mass. One of two things is true. When God first made earth, there was no earthquakes and it was not part of the prefect design or earthquakes are a consequence of the fall. I don't know but both of these possibilities fit the Christian worldview and does not not conflict with science.”

This really is utterly stupid. Harsh, but in reality, not harsh enough. To admit that you entertain both of those theories is enough to warn me off ever conversing with you again.

What part of it offend you? The thought that there was once a time when all the land on earth was one land mass or the thought that our sins and depravity caused the earth to deteriorate to the point that life-ending natural disasters were brought into being? If you knew about plate tectonics, you could not have a problem with the first statement. It's science.. As for the second, it's a theological thought. Agree or disagree - whatever but to dismiss either out of hand without explanation is either ignorant or lazy. Take your pick, I don't know. 

Look, from this comment it is abundantly clear that we simply CANNOT debate. Why? Well, the world is full of people making empirical observations and creating (testable) theories based on these observations. These can be disproved using the scientific method, the best method for achieving cumulative accuracy that there is.

Empirical evidence tells us that the earth was at one time one land mass and that continent eventually broke up due to  guess what? Plate Tectonics. Just what exactly do you think that science can disprove about what I've written? Couldn't you have been clearer?

YOU, however, take those observations, and sweep them under the carpet / stuff them down your pants / pretend they don’t exist. Your two ‘theories’ or ‘ideas’ are hilarious.

You mean the earth wasn't one land mass one time? Do you really wanna argue that?

They are hilarious because if you knew the first thing about cosmology or geology, you would know that they are empirically disprovable.

Where is your evidence that the earth wasn't one land mass?

We know EXACTLY why and how plate tectonics work. We know how planets form. Heck, scientists reckon they have even empirically seen it off the star T Chamaeleontis. So it is pointless debating with you when you can simply claim any theory out of your arse while ignoring all empirical data. It renders the collection of all such data pointless.

And exactly how does any of that disprove what I said? C'mon you must be able to be clearer than that.You would have to throw out Pangea and what we know from Geology and how plate tectonics works. Wither you are mistaken or you have not clearly said or thought about what you are trying to say.

It is my opinion that you should never receive medical help, you have no right to use the internet and modern technology. All of these things are a result of the scientific method which helps to accumulate knowledge and develop everything.

That has always seemed like one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard. Science is how I make living. Science is one of God's gifts to humanity. I wouldn't deny it anymore than I would refuse to breath. And you have yet to show how anything I have said is scientifically wrong. You just don't like it. I don't care about your opinion.

In my opinion, Johnny P, you seem to be just making excuses. Adding insult to injury with you condescension.

You, however, decide to ignore any science that may harm your worldview, and use only that which doesn’t harm your worldview in a world of cherry-picking.

Show me where I have done that. 

Such double standards are hypocritical. My partner’s daughter in her first year of a geology degree could disprove your crazy ideas in an instance. Go and read some cosmology. Go and learn.

 Again - was the earth one land mass at a single time  in the distant past or not? Won't answer or can't? I bet she could.

Don’t argue out of your depth. Get the philosophical training and the ancillary knowledge to deserve a place at the debating table with people who clearly have a better idea of science and logic. Good day to you, and don’t you dare say anything like ‘it’s too hot for me’ since you seem to struggle to argue yourself out of a paper bag and I really do have better things to do.

Johnny P, you won't even step into the paper bag and won't even agree to making some epistemological foundation. You have not shown that you have any idea of science and logic so I really don't feel bad if you never comment here again I'll just pray that God has mercy on you and bring him to yourself. Some one may get through to you even if I don't.

Incidentally, I was reading the conversation you had on DC some time ago and I had to cringe.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/06/is-effort-at-dc-worth-it.html

Probably because you couldn't follow them.

Examples of your superb logic:

"He isn't right because he's smarter or has some special interpretation you are too stupid to understand. He is right because he agrees with God"

I guess you would have to prove that God doesn't agree or that there is no God,.  Good luck with that.

"your own sins affect others around you - even those not yet born. "

And your problem is? 

"That is true no matter who you and where you live. I'm suggesting that God created everything and placed you in the best possible place at the best possible time with all the life experiences that would best lead you to God."

Acts 17. Can you demonstrate this as false?

".I'm not a universalist because the sacrifice was too high for God to redeem His people for everyone to just get a pass."

Do you know what a universalist is?

"I didn't say Adam and Eve were enslaved to sin...We are." - but God knew that Adam and Eve would do what they did at creation, so who is ultimately responsible. He chose that outcome over and above any other outcome. Oh yeah, and you're a fool to think Adam and Eve actually existed. Again, empirically false.

Yes, God did know. Yes, God allowed it. So what. That does not mean the world is perfect. God did not make Adam and Eve sin. Just like he doesn't make you or I sin. God has a purpose for everything that happen- decreed and allowed.  I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that Adam and Eve did not exist. I know that there are many scientists who believe the evidence points that direction but there are others who do not. So unless you wanna argue that all of them are morons, you might wanna turn down the arrogance at least a tad. I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever picked up a book. I'd start with the Bible if I were you.

"all people are evil and deserving of Hell."

Tell me, how would you go about disproving that scientifically?  Again, I think defining "evil" would help you understand what I said, because you probably did not. Oh wait, can we try something simpler? How about using your  "knowledge" of the Christian Worldview to show that is now what Christians believe.

"I'm not a young earth creationist and neither" and yet you believe in Adam and Eve and some very strange ideas of plate tectonics etc.





Guess you don't know what a Young Earth Creationist is. Given the level of ignorance of plate tectonics and the Bible you have shown, can't say I'm surprised.


etc etc

By and large, Johnny P., you claim I am not worth your time talking to yet you look up my previous posts and you just go on and on about how wrong I am with no substantiation or context or demonstration. Who are you that your opinion should carry weight. Seems all your writing is good for is instigating facepalms. Thanks for the laughs however.

What had happen' was.....: FacePalm of th Day #134 - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will? Part 3

Related articles

• Inevitability of Plate Tectonics on Super-Earths (acceleratingfuture.com)
• Why doesn't the Moon have plate tectonics like the Earth (wiki.answers.com)
• How can studying plate tectonics and observing that earthquakes occur along these plate boundaries help people (wiki.answers.com)
• Is Australia an island or continent or both (wiki.answers.com)

What does it feel like to fly over planet Earth?

What does it feel like to fly over planet Earth?

Antiproton Ring Found Around Earth [Science!]

Yes, the earth has a ring of particles in orbit around it. Under thirty anti-protons! Cool!


Antiproton Ring Found Around Earth [Science!]

Related articles

• PAMELA Spacecraft Finds a Belt of Antimatter Around the Earth By Clay Dillow (imullins89.wordpress.com)
• Researchers prove existence of antiproton radiation belt around Earth (physorg.com)
• Blog - Antiproton Radiation Belt Discovered Around Earth (technologyreview.com)
• Antiproton ring found around Earth (newscientist.com)
• Confirmation of geomagnetically trapped antiprotons which can be trapped with superconductors enable antimatter enabled space applications (nextbigfuture.com)

Earth Guide for Aliens [Video]

In 1977, a gold plated copper disk containing information, images, and sounds from earth was loaded into one of the voyager probes and shot into space. In a recent post, a video containing some of the information was posted.
Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan's Earth Guide For Aliens from NPR on Vimeo.

Earth Guide for Aliens [Video]

Peregrinations: Dinosaurs and the Age of the Earth

Rick Gerhardt posted an interesting video on what the Bible has to say on the age of the Earth and dinosaurs. I think science has adequately shown that the earth is quite a bit older than 6K years. However that does not imply that macro evolution is true. The bible does not give us enough information to set dates for the beginning or the end.




Dinosaurs and the Age of the Earth from :redux on Vimeo.

Peregrinations: Dinosaurs and the Age of the Earth

Related articles

• "Mega Dinosaurs" take Manhattan in new exhibit (travelnews.britishairways.com)
• The Age of the Earth According to People on the Street [Video] (geeksaresexy.net)
• Paleontologist attempting to turn chickens into dinosaurs (dvice.com)
• Why would a meteorologist use meteorites and lunar rocks to find out the age of the earth (wiki.answers.com)
• Could dinosaurs and humans live together (wiki.answers.com)

ID.Plus: Glise 581g - first 'earth-like' exoplanet?

You may have heard about the discovery of a planet light years away that is the closest to being like earth than ever observed before: Gelise 581g. Some folk have been saying that its guaranteed to have life on it. However, I like this blog post because Peter Williams does a good job in explaining why breaking out the champagne because we have found another planet capable of supporting life as we know it is premature. Don't get excited yet.

Thus far we have an unconfirmed report that Gliese 581g might be rocky (since it may be too small to be a gas giant - although the mass given is a minimum figure) and that it seems to be in the right 'goldilocks' temperature zone for liquid water - that's if there is any water there and if the atmosphere is of the right composition!
Of course, the phrase 'Earth-like' is being used with some lattitude here: the gravity on Gliese 581g is higher than on earth (because its about three to four times the size of Earth). Moreover, the planet is 'tidally locked', meaning it doesn't rotate (i.e. no seasons). This probably means that there's only a narrow 'twilight zone' of the planet that's even potentially habitable; assuming, of course, that the atmosphere (if it even has one) hasn't frozen out over time to the night side of the planet!

I think we should pay Gilse 581g a visit.
ID.Plus: Glise 581g - first 'earth-like' exoplanet?

Did God Make Day and Night Before He Made The Sun?

Here is Shane's next problem: My Response is in red.


Here is another descrepency.

Genesis 1:3, "God said let there be light, and there was light. God saw that the light was good. Then He seperated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day" and the darkness night".

So as of the first day of creation week, we have day and night. The scripture even verifies this by saying afterward-"And evening and morning came, marking the first day"!

Yet, we have in Genesis 1:16, "God made two great lights-the larger one (sun) to govern the day, and the smaller one (moon) to govern the night".

So we have here, God creating day and night on the first day of creation week....but God does not make the sun until the fourth day of creation week?

How was it that day and night existed before the sun was even created.....?

We now know in this modern age, that day and night are reconciled with the sun....the sun is our only source of light.

We now know in this modern age, that the moon is not a light....the moon only reflects the sun's light thats it!

It seems pretty obvious that the author of Genesis was not a divinly inspired person.

More likely, the author did not relize the immense size of the sun thousands and thousands of miles away, and did not realize it was the sun itself which gives us our only source of light.

More likely the author did not realize the moon was not a light in and of itself, the moon only reflects the suns light!

It is easy to see why the author would not realize these things. If we never developed the sciences and understandings we have today, we would probably think the same things based on our limited observations.

The first thing I need to say is that I am not an young earth creationist. I think evidence points to the the earth being more than 6000 years old...a lot more. That being said I think that the fact that evening and morning are discussed before the sun is visible tells us that "day:" or ("yom" in Hebrew) must mean something different than a 24 hour day because without the sun how would you know if its evening or morning. Add to that I think that most people look at the Genesis account being told from the point of view of some one standing in orbit and viewing what is happening on earth. However this is not the reference point from which the events are described, It  says that God hovered above the waters. A lot of detail is skipped between verse 1 and that point, but let's start at that point. If someone had been above the waters what would they have seen? Sciences says they would see the earth cloaked with a think layer of gas blotting out the sun. and the stars and the moon. From the standpoint of verse 4, the moon, sun and stars were just made visible at that point just like we know from science that happened.  I agree that the author did not how far away the sun was or the star or that the moon was reflecting sun light. So? Shane, is it your contention that the author was saying the sun was not millions of miles away or that the moon did not reflect sunlight?  I think not. It is describing what a person would have seen had they been on earth at that time (floating in the air with God above the waters  before land was created). It's not trying to give us every single detail or explanation. Does this conflict with science? No. Do all Christians agree with me? No. But although this is a controversy is doesn't show the Bible errant and it's not a salvation issue. Interesting? Yes. I think that this is what science is: Figuring out how God did it.