PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Magnetic Field

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
admin

|      |       Report Post



Administrator
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Does the Magnetic Field prove the earth is not as old as evolutionist say?

http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/creation_magnetic_field.HTM
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 4:12 PM on April 30, 2002 | IP
Exxoss

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, because the earth is just as old as it according to the big bang theory, which has magnetic field


-------
I am Exxoss, come to save you all from your impending doom!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

-Exxoss
 


Posts: 438 | Posted: 10:15 AM on September 25, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

it would have been impossible for the earth to survive 20,000 years ago due to the decreasing magnetic field, therefore it has to be young.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:56 AM on November 20, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

it would have been impossible for the earth to survive 20,000 years ago due to the decreasing magnetic field, therefore it has to be young.


Why?  Mars and the Moon have very small magnetic fields, and they survived.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:41 AM on November 26, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But the Earths magnetic field hasn't always been decreasing.  It has increased and decreased throughout our 4.5 billion year history and at times reversed it's polarity.  So no, the Earth's magnetic field does not support a young Earth
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:01 AM on November 26, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, the earth's decreasing magnetic feild is just one of the many many things proving a young earth. The earth is young just like God says it is, don't believe anyone who calls God a lier!
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:12 PM on December 14, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No it isn't proof of a young Earth, there is no real proof for a young Earth.  A young Earth has been totally foasified, proven wrong, over 200 years ago.    The evidence has shown that Earth's magnetic field has increased and decreased throughout the history of the planet.  Just because you choose to ignore reality does not make you right.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:50 PM on December 14, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For information about magnetic reversals (ie it is not conveniantly made up to avoid the problem):

http://www.geolab.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/reversals_e.shtml

or

http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/reversals.html


After you realise they are real go ask yourselves why so many Creationist sites till use a decreasing magnetic field as an argument for a young earth.
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 08:13 AM on January 2, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Magnetic decay is a creationist argument brought forward by a man named Barnes. Barnes falsely assumed that the magnetic decay is a steady state. Barnes uses 150 years of data and extrapolates it back 10,000 years.  

In any event, there are a few HUGE problems with this story....like empirical evidence.  The magnetic field reverses. The atlantic ocean floor as it spreads records the weakening - reversing - strengthening in its stone as the continents spread from the mid-atlantic ridge and the ions in molten rock hardne aligned to the magnetic influence of the day. The field is expected to reverse sometime in the next few thousand years.There have been about 200 reversals in our past. Barnes stated that the field 10,000 years ago would have been as strong as that of a magnetic star, and stated (correctly) that this was absurd. Here are the major flaws in this analysis.

1)  Barnes studied only the dipole component of the Earth's magnetic field, In fact, the very same data that Barnes used show that the nondipole component of the field increased during the same period of time, almost exactly cancelling the decrease in the dipole field. This alone is sufficient to destroy the basis of his work.

2)  The decay is not steady...a false assumption by Barnes.

3) Barnes failed to consider any other evidence than the 150 years worth of data from geomagnetic observatories that he used. There exists, in paleomagnetic data, a long record of the Earth's magnetic dipole strength (extending backwards for millions of years). The data are in agreement with the observatory data Barnes used over their common intersection, but they differ drastically from Barnes' extrapolation when one goes further back in time.  

Failing to consider data that corroborate or disprove is a common creationist tenet.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:10 PM on January 27, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

in my opinion the majority of people who continue to use the magnetic field argument are trolls, not creationists

 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 7:35 PM on January 28, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



The magnetic field fairy tale, perpetrated by a guy named Barnes, has been long ago debunked by real scientists.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html#magnetic

Briefly, Barnes took approximately 150 years of data on the Earth's dipole magnetic field and extrapolated it backwards to about 10000 years Before Present (B.P.). He stated that the field 10,000 years ago would, on this calculation, have been as strong as that of a magnetic star, and stated (correctly) that this was absurd. However, there are four fatal flaws in his analysis.

In the first place, Barnes studied only the dipole component of the Earth's magnetic field, In fact, the very same data that Barnes used show that the nondipole component of the field increased during the same period of time, almost exactly cancelling the decrease in the dipole field that Barnes calculated (D. Brent Dalrymple, U. S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park CA, in Reviews of 31 Creationist Books). This alone is sufficient to destroy the basis of his work.

The second failure of Barnes' study was the idea that one can take data from a short period of time and simply extrapolate it backwards to obtain a reliable estimate at a time remotely removed from the data. Anyone competent in analyzing scientific data knows that extrapolations are good only for a relatively short period of time, if at all, and that the further away from the actual data one goes, the less reliable it becomes. Barnes extrapolated 150 years' worth of data back 10,000 years! In real life, one would be surprised if extrapolation of these data more than a few hundred years back were accurate.

The third failure of Barnes' study was the mathematical model he chose. He decided to fit the data to an exponential. The data fit a straight line just as well (see Figure 1 of Stephen G. Brush's article in Scientists Confront Creationism), but a straight line would have given a much older age for the Earth than the 10,000 years that Barnes, because of his Biblical literalism, wishes to promote.

The fourth failure of Barnes' study was his failure to consider any other evidence than the 150 years worth of data from geomagnetic observatories that he used. There exists, in paleomagnetic data, a long record of the Earth's magnetic dipole strength (extending backwards for millions of years). The data are in agreement with the observatory data Barnes used over their common intersection, but they differ drastically from Barnes' extrapolation when one goes further back in time.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:26 PM on February 4, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Great topic!  Just a quick question for you, guest,  are you a Creationist or an Evolutionist?  You keep puzzleing me.

Your last post seems to be pasted from another website, but I'll play...

The magnetic field fairy tale, perpetrated by a guy named Barnes, has been long ago debunked by real scientists.


This statement makes me think negatively about the author of this article.  "Debunked by 'real' scientists?"  Excuse me, but Barnes was a real scientist, and all scientists are entitled to a few mistakes I think.

Also, I read somewhere in this thread that the earth's magnetic field has reversed several times throughout its history.  Is there any evidence for this?  Have we obseved this?

To illustrate the age of the earth trying to be interpreted with things like the manetic field, lets imagine this:
You walk into a room and a candle is burning.  Suppose I asked you the following questions, When was it lit?  How long has it been burning?  Well, you can calculate the rate that it is burning.  Lets say that it is burning at the rate of one (1) inch per hour.  Would this give you the answer to the questions? No.  We don't know how long it was when it was lit.  And we don't even know if it is burning at the same rate as it was yesterday.

Now the earth is the same way.  The sun too.  Actually the whole universe.  It will eventually burn out.  But we don't know when it was lit (the age of the universe).  We don't know how long its been burning.  We can measure the rate, but has it always been constant?  

So to tell the age of the earth by the magnetic field, may not be possible. Maybe it is, I don't know.  

But what I'd like to say is, I believe that it was lit.  When we see a candle burning, we know it was lit. It took energy to light it.  I believe that the "lighter" of the universe was God.  Of course, the obvious question is "where did God come from?".  But where did all the stuff come from to make the big bang?   If God exists, he exists outside of time and space, making himself "always everywhere" and everywhere was nowhere.  Its hard for our 3-pound brains to commprehend, but it doesn't take any more faith to believe, in my opinion, than that we came from an explosion that came from absolutely nothing.

Just my two cents, or maybe it was three




(Edited by E-mc2 2/4/2004 at 9:05 PM).
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 9:03 PM on February 4, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry for the above, maybe "guest" just means, well "guest" LOL!  I was a little confused, I had never seen anyone but members allowed on forums. sorry
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 10:15 PM on February 4, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here is an article showing how the internal dynamo of the earth can be accurately modeled.

When North Goes South

Aboriginal fire pits in Australia retain frozen magnetic fields showing that there was a significant excursion when they were made many thousands of years ago.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 09:50 AM on February 5, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Um, the article does state "The geological data, invaluable to show what happened, registers only a mute shrug when it comes to the deeper questions. "  In other words, we don't know much about it.  But as I said above,
the magnetic field of the earth probably does not prove the age of the earth, no.
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 12:24 PM on February 5, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Um, the article does state "The geological data, invaluable to show what happened, registers only a mute shrug when it comes to the deeper questions. "  In other words, we don't know much about it.


No, it means that mere observations do not produce a working theoretical model.  

We can drop a ball and demonstrate gravity, but we still do not have a clear picture of WHY gravity occurs.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:27 PM on February 5, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, this is turning inot a "who can have the last word" argument.  I'll let you win; I won't be around for a couple days....
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 3:07 PM on February 5, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from E-mc2 at 9:03 PM on February 4, 2004 :

Also, I read somewhere in this thread that the earth's magnetic field has reversed several times throughout its history.  Is there any evidence for this?  Have we obseved this?
(Edited by E-mc2 2/4/2004 at 9:05 PM).



The evidence is in the ions in the rock.  As molten rock emerges from the mid-atlantic rift. The ions align with the magnetic poles while the rock is fluid and harden with the alignment permanently recorded.  Hence, the record is quite good.   The data were available for Barnes, which  he apparently chose to ignore...which may make him a bad scientist...but perhaps still a scientist as you suggest.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:13 PM on February 6, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What?  Hey I'll drop this one, not my area of expertise.  We aren't proving anything anyway.
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 9:50 PM on February 6, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What is your area of expertise?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:55 PM on February 8, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Guest at 3:13 PM on February 6, 2004 :
Quote from E-mc2 at 9:03 PM on February 4, 2004 :

Also, I read somewhere in this thread that the earth's magnetic field has reversed several times throughout its history.  Is there any evidence for this?  Have we obseved this?
(Edited by E-mc2 2/4/2004 at 9:05 PM).



The evidence is in the ions in the rock.  As molten rock emerges from the mid-atlantic rift. The ions align with the magnetic poles while the rock is fluid and harden with the alignment permanently recorded.  Hence, the record is quite good.   The data were available for Barnes, which  he apparently chose to ignore...which may make him a bad scientist...but perhaps still a scientist as you suggest.



JM: Here's a little more information on the poor science by creationists


Cheers

Joe Meert

Creationist Magnetic Field Analysis
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 08:55 AM on April 26, 2004 | IP
godyag

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The present strength of the earths magnetic field does not prove or disprove the conventional Geological evolution of the earth. Nor does it prove the young earth creationist theory.  In my opinion it makes the young earth  model extremely unlikely.

Here are some important observations and ideas:

The entire oceanic crust is made up of basalt extruded through rifts along features called Mid-ocean ridges.  Basalt is extruded creating new ocean crust, while older crust away from the spreading ridge is subducted under continents (This can be observed).  These ridges have been shown to spread at a varying rates depending on where you are in the world (on the order of a few cm to 1 m depending on where you are).  The present magnetic field aligns the ions within the molten rock before it is cooled by the colder ocean water.  This creates "stripes" of rock with parallel to ocean ridges (which are not straight) symmetrical of either side of the mid-ocean ridge with the same magnetic polarity.  When the magnetic field reverses, a new stripe is created.  The stripes are observed all the way across the ocean floor and disappear underneath the continents where it has been observed that the denser thinner ocean crust is subducted below continental crust.  

Now, if you assume that the spreading rates have been CONSTANT since spreading began, then the widest section of ocean crust would be 90 million years old.  However, who is to say that spreading has been constant?  Regardless of the past rate, if young earth creationists want to fit their earth model to observations they have to come up with a process that will speed up the spreading rates sometime in the past (to fit to their 6000 year time line).


Second, are the magnetic stripes.  There are literally hundreds of reversals recorded on the ocean floor, and in "hot spots" like Hawaii (where basalt is extruded at a point as the ocean crust moves relative to the hot spot which is considered stationary).  This is evidenced by a long trail of islands stretching away from Hawaii recording the past positions of the oceanic plate.  So, if the earth is only 6000 years old then the young earth creationists have to fit their model to these observations.  This means 100's of reversals over 1000's of years.  Over this scale there should be magnetic reversals every hundred years or so (very rough estimate, done on the spot).  Now, during the past few hundred years we know that there has not been a reversal because of shipping records.  So, once again the reversal change rate has to have been higher is the past under the creationist model.

Now, lets put these two observations together (spreading rates and magnetic stripes).  If the young earth creationist model is to fit the observations they have to have ocean crust spreading as much as 30 000 km (distance between the spreading ridge subducted under the North American plate and the oldest crust measured by the number of observed magnetic stripes - SE Asia) over 6000 years.  That is super fast (a few km's per year).  The current spreading rate is observed to be between 1 and around 200 cm per year (ballpark), depending on where you measure it.  Along with this there should be magnetic reversals every hundred years or so.  

But, creationists could say that the Flood Event caused super fast spreading and magnetic reversals which has been slowing down for the past few thousand years.  That is fine, but then you have to explain why the sediment on the ocean floor gets thicker at a linear rate away from a spreading center (ie suggesting that older crust has been exposed to sedimentation longer and is therefore thicker).  If there was a sudden and harsh event like the flood moving the plates and causing reversals, then a relatively sudden slow down then you would expect sedimentation along most of the ocean floor to be about equal thickness since the ocean plate would have slowed down to a crawl for the past few thousand years.  This is not observed.  Think of it as a wedge of sediment that gets thicker away from the mid-ocean ridege at a near constant rate.

Perhaps there is another model that young earth creationist have to explain these stripes, spreading rates, and sedimentation, I would like to hear it if I can.  Using the observations I described above the young earth creation model seems extremely unlikely.

p.s. The spreading rates and pacific ocean width are educated guesses (ballpark), I don't have time right now to look them up right now, perhaps tonight I will edit this with the correct rate. Regardless, they are close enough to illustrate my point.  

p.p.s Once again sorry for the grammar LOL


-------
love,
godyag
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 10:56 AM on April 26, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yup, there are problems with the super fast spreading proposals.  I've written up some of them here:
Super fast spreading?

Cheers

Joe Meert
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 11:42 AM on April 26, 2004 | IP
godyag

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well done Joe,

Refer to Joe's page to put real numbers to my estimates.  

: )


-------
love,
godyag
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 1:09 PM on April 26, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From AiG

Creationist counter-response



The nuclear physicist Dr Russell Humphreys believed that Dr Barnes had the right idea, and he also accepted that the reversals were real. He modified Barnes’ model to account for special effects of a liquid conductor, like the molten metal of the earth’s outer core. If the liquid flowed upwards (due to convection—hot fluids rise, cold fluids sink) this could sometimes make the field reverse quickly.5,6 Now, as discussed in Creation 19(3), 1997, Dr John Baumgardner proposes that the plunging of tectonic plates was a cause of the Genesis Flood (see online version). Dr Humphreys says these plates would have sharply cooled the outer parts of the core, driving the convection.7 This means that most of the reversals occurred in the Flood year, every week or two. And after the Flood, there would be large fluctuations due to residual motion. But the reversals and fluctuations could not halt the overall decay pattern — rather, the total field energy would decay even faster (see graph above).8

This model also explains why the sun reverses its magnetic field every 11 years. The sun is a gigantic ball of hot, energetically moving, electrically conducting gas. Contrary to the dynamo model, the overall field energy of the sun is decreasing.

Dr Humphreys also proposed a test for his model: magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record Earth’s magnetic field in one direction; the inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction.

Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prévot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90° of reversal recorded continuously in it.9 And it was no fluke — eight years later, they reported an even faster reversal.10 This was staggering news to them and the rest of the evolutionary community, but strong support for Humphreys’ model. See also Dr Humphreys’ online article The Earth’s magnetic field is young.

Conclusion
The earth’s magnetic field is not only a good navigational aid and a shield from space particles, it is powerful evidence against evolution and billions of years. The clear decay pattern shows the earth could not be older than about 10,000 years.



You can visit AiG for the full article, including additional addendum info and references.  

Regarding Sea Floor Sediment - Please read the following from AiG AiG Sea Floor Sediment:


There is a vast difference between how uniformitarian scientists and creation scientists view Earth history and the data sets from the past. This monograph starkly illustrates this contrast by organising data from oceanography within the young-Earth paradigm. As a result, the outcome is radically different from the standard interpretation, and as Larry states:

'It is likely that an entirely new understanding of paleoceanography could be developed from this preliminary age model.' (page 23)
In this monograph, Larry (who has a Ph.D. in atmospheric physics) provides general information, mostly within five appendices, on the distribution, type, and average thickness of sediment on the ocean bottom. It came as quite a surprise to uniformitarian scientists when they first discovered that the average thickness of generally unconsolidated ocean sediment is thin compared to continental sediments — only 600 metres. Since these sediments have an average water content of about 50 per cent, they represent 300 metres of lithified sediment. He also gives us the modern sources and accumulation rates of sediments within the present uniformitarian age. He also presents an overview of the ocean drilling programme, including where the holes have been drilled. One big asset for the person unfamiliar with oceanographic and geologic jargon is a glossary.

In their paradigm, uniformitarian scientists simply extrapolate the current snail-paced accumulation rates of ocean sedimentation into the past. One of the main points of this monograph is to show that from the global Flood model, we need to apply an exponentially decreasing rate of sedimentation from the Flood to the present. With this biblical model, the author derives a standard age equation, but uses biblical boundary conditions to reinterpret sedimentation and oceanic cooling rates after the Flood. As a result, sedimentation and oceanic cooling is very rapid immediately after the Flood. Based on oxygen isotope data from foraminifera shells in deep-sea cores (explained in appendices C and E), the ocean temperature falls about 15°C in several hundred years after the Flood (Figure 3.5). Since the warm water immediately after the Flood provides the copious mid and high latitude evaporation for a post-Flood Ice Age, this result agrees well with my model.1

Such rapid cooling also causes a vigorous oceanic circulation, significantly greater than today. This in turn enhances vertical overturning and upwelling of nutrients for prolific biological reproduction. I might add that the atmospheric circulation and precipitation probably were enhanced after the Flood, increasing lithogenic and aeolian input into the sea. All these non-uniformitarian consider-ations would have resulted in significantly higher biogenic and lithogenic sedimentation rates. However, the details of these processes still need to be worked out. The problem of explaining all the biogenous sediments within the Genesis Flood paradigm was first brought up by Roth.2

This monograph is admittedly a preliminary study. The exponential decrease in sedimentation, although a good first-guess trend, likely needs refinement. At this stage of the investigation, it is likely too early to speculate on the time-frame of oxygen isotope oscillations found at the tops of cores. These fluctuations have been correlated to repeating ice ages by uniformitarian scientists. The physical meaning of these oscillations still needs to be explained within the creationist paradigm.

Larry, sensitive to the Flood/post-Flood boundary controversy within creationism, opts as a first guess to use the top of 'Cretaceous' ocean sediments as the end of the Flood. Hence his equations are derived for the 'Tertiary' sediments. This is a sensible approach, but here is where we must be cautious, because the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary in the ocean is a uniformitarian interpretation based on microfossils. Hence, the oldest ocean sediments are said to be Middle Mesozoic. Since these organisms were alive before and during the Flood, and probably after the Flood, we cannot simply borrow their relative time-frame for the Flood and say that the ocean floors are late Flood. For those creationists who believe the geological column is a Genesis Flood sequence, the uniformitarian time-scale derived from oceanic microfossils may not be correlated to continental index fossils. The current oceanic distribution of microfossils and the lack of macrofossils on the ocean bottom is likely due to the mechanism of the Flood and its aftermath. There also is the common problem of reworking and the tendency to give multiple names for the same micro-organism if found in different aged layers.3 All this needs to be sorted out within creationism, which will not be easy.

Larry focuses on oxygen isotope ratios as indicators of oceanic temperatures, as well he should since this ratio usually is the main variable of interest to uniformitarian scientists. However, the meaning of oxygen isotope ratios needs to be kept in perspective. It is probably true that oxygen isotope ratios are a general indication of temperature. However, there are many variables that can affect the down-core measurements of oxygen isotopes,4 several of which Larry describes. I believe the general increase in the oxygen isotope ratio in micro-organisms up-core, and hence decreasing temperature is a good trend with time, but the magnitude of the derived temperature change is questionable. Hence, the Tertiary and Quaternary wiggles superimposed on the general trend (Figures E1 and E2) may be due to the other variables that affect oxygen isotope ratios. Even some uniformitarian scientists have concluded that oxygen isotope ratios can be way off when compared to fossil information.5

This is a good monograph to acquaint the reader with the differences between the uniformitarian and creationist models of oceanic sediments. It is preliminary, but a good start in hopefully incorporating oceanographic data sets within the creationist paradigm.

(references at the AiG Sea Floor Sediment page)

Forgive my posting rote data - I seldom delve this deeply into ocean floor geology.  

You guys may also find this interesting... - AiG's coverage of a creationist Forum on Catestrophic Plate Techtonics

Also -

Seafloor 'zebra-stripes' don't mean slow and gradual.

The mid-ocean 'ridges' are undersea mountain chains with volcanoes at the boundary between two 'plates' of the earth's outer shell. It is believed that here, molten magma from below can well up as the plates move apart, making new oceanic crust — a process called 'seafloor spreading'. As the new crust cools down, it 'freezes' within it the direction of the earth's magnetic field at that time.

When instruments measuring magnetism are towed (on the ocean surface) across these ridges, they detect bands of alternating magnetic direction, like a 'zebra-stripe' pattern, with each side of the ridge mirroring the other. This is interpreted to mean that as new seafloor had gradually formed on each side of the ridge, the earth's magnetism had slowly reversed many times, over millions of years. However, DR Baumgardner says this pattern does not mean the spreading was slow. He says,

'From an estimate of the viscosity of the outer core, where the currents associated with the earth's magnetism exist, there is no reason why the magnetic field can't reverse rapidly. Moreover, there is field evidence that it has reversed rapidly, within weeks.'4

In addition, drilling the sea floor has shown that, regardless of the overall direction of the magnetism detected from the surface, the magnetic direction within a drill core frequently varies widely.5 This is less consistent with slow spreading than with a rapid welling up of new magma during a period of rapid reversals; the magma in contact with the surface will reflect the direction at that time, but by the time the deeper magma cools a few weeks later, the direction has switched again — and so on for deeper levels.


From Creation Magazine Conversation with John Baumgardner

(Edited by Gup20 4/26/2004 at 3:50 PM).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:48 PM on April 26, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Technically speaking you did not post a counter response.  You posted the articles by Baumgardner and Humphreys that I have critiqued.  In Humphreys case, he has made numerous simple mistakes that a Ph.D. physicist should not make.  These include falsifying or inventing data (reversals not present in the archeomagnetic record he claims to have used see
Humphreys bad science
and misrepresentation of the Coe and Prevot publications (they never claimed rapid field reversals in any of their articles see above link).  Furthermore, Humphreys never cites their most important 1999 update because it totally undermines his claims.  Baumgardner's conversation does not answer the fundamental issues I describe in the link above.   So, nice try, but the links you provided are still as flawed as ever.

Cheers

Joe Meert
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 4:01 PM on April 26, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Bump since Lester wants different threads to discuss his methods to date the earth.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:25 AM on August 22, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well my point is being well demonstrated again. We all have worldviews. Nothing is interpeted in a vacuum.
Evolutionists go out to make the data fit what they already believe to be true -naturalism rules.
Creationists do the same because they know that God is real and that he doesn't lie.

Evolutionists are sure that nature does not lie but they don't appear to notice that they need to interpret their findings according to their worldview.
You see man is a very tricky character and he has one major unifying trait -he tends to want to hide from God hence the need to justify anything that discounts or rearranges the Bible so that it can be considered to be unreliable. That way he's not responsible for not believing that God exists.

Which worldview is better supported by the data? There is no evidence for microevolution. Our genome is deteriorating, not improving or increasing in complexity. Whatever is hot must cool down. Entropy is ever increasing. Historical records show a relatively brief history and if we've been around so long there should be billions of people buried in the dirt not the few that we find.
If you're an evolutionist, you believe in macroevolution, you think our genome is improving and increasing in complexity, you think planets remain hot for billions of years, you think nothing went bang for no particular reason, you don't believe in the second law of thermodynamics and I have no idea what you make of the brief historical records of our planet.

 


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 07:58 AM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:58 AM on August 23, 2009 :
Well my point is being well demonstrated again. We all have worldviews. Nothing is interpeted in a vacuum.
Evolutionists go out to make the data fit what they already believe to be true -naturalism rules.
Creationists do the same because they know that God is real and that he doesn't lie.


OK, here is some real data:

Magnetic field strength from Australian Aboriginal fire pits.

Now, here is Humphreys' plot:


Let's just change the scale, reverse the timeline and call it truth, it'll sell to the true believers.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:22 PM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolutionists go out to make the data fit what they already believe to be true -naturalism rules.


If that were true, theories would never be changed.   And they get changed frequently.   Evolutionary theory, for example, has had major revisions several times, precisely because the data didn't fit what people had thought.  

On the other hand, honest creationists like Kurt Wise openly admit that no amount of evidence would change their minds.

Wise has written that "if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Kurt_Wise

Evolutionists are sure that nature does not lie but they don't appear to notice that they need to interpret their findings according to their worldview.


Sorry.   I'm not buying the "no person can learn things outside of his preconceptions" spin.  It's demonstrably false.

There is no evidence for microevolution. Our genome is deteriorating, not improving or increasing in complexity.


Demonstrably false.  Would you like to learn about some favorable human mutations?   And explain how you calculate complexity.   If a new allele is added to the population, is that more or less complexity?

Whatever is hot must cool down. Entropy is ever increasing. Historical records show a relatively brief history and if we've been around so long there should be billions of people buried in the dirt not the few that we find.


Even if the Earth is a few thousand years old, billions have been buried in the dirt.  Why don't we find them?   If you figure this out, you'll know what that argument is a loser.

If you're an evolutionist, you believe in macroevolution, you think our genome is improving and increasing in complexity,


Nope.  That's not what the theory says.  "People are usually down on things they aren't up on." - Everett Dirkson

you think planets remain hot for billions of years,


Rutherford proved this over a hundred years ago, settling the argument between Lord Kelvin and Darwin once and for all.   Kelvin calculated the heat flux and "proved" the Earth was maybe ten million years old.    Darwin said the diversity of life meant it had to be much older.   Rutherford thereafter discovered radioactivity, calculated the heat from that, and Darwin won.

you think nothing went bang for no particular reason,


Not part of evolutionary theory, or even of science.   Weird misconception, that.

you don't believe in the second law of thermodynamics


Boltzmann was the first to mathematically demonstrate the second law of thermodynamics, and he was a Darwinian.   Perhaps he knew something you don't?    Hint: does entropy always have to increase?  

and I have no idea what you make of the brief historical records of our planet.


Writing is a relatively recent innovation.

We have human artifacts dating back tens of thousands of years, but writing came relatively late.


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 6:24 PM on August 23, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.