magnetites, the old earth's ally

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:JM: If you want to start a bar-b-que with your eyes, read Humphreys!

quote:

---

--Yes about it? Can I have an answer? I have a Stephen Book with a short section on reversing polarity in oceanic basalt, though I can find none on such an igneous formation of continents.

---

JM:Huh?CheersJoe Meert[/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]"JM: If you want to start a bar-b-que with your eyes, read Humphreys!"
--I think it would be best to leave this point before the flames begin to roll! (put on your sunglasses ) [/QUOTE]JM: No need for flames. The falsification of data is clearly recognizable from the source so there really isn't any defense. It just IS.

quote:

---

"JM:Huh?"
--I quote myself (I believet his is what you were refering to when you said 'Now how about the other question?')

---

JM: How interesting that you would tout a hypothesis about something you didn't properly research? That's rather sloppy don't you think? The books and papers are available to you. You can start with Opdyke and Channel's book and perhaps Jacobs book on magnetic reversals. I dare say, you should have done this in advance of arguing your point!CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]"--What source is this, and how did you come to the conclusion that this is Humphreys source as well?[/QUOTE]JM: Well, duh! Humphreys referenced the source. I guess he thought no one would bother to check it?

quote:

---

"JM: How interesting that you would tout a hypothesis about something you didn't properly research? That's rather sloppy don't you think?"
--I have done the research, though you obviously are implying that I am missing something, so what is it I am missing and I would like a reference.

---

JM: You're missing the part about how rocks record magnetization and the correlation to continental sections. These leave you in a tough position that you have not yet recognized.

quote:

---

--I 'dare' say, let us argue the point, what is this point Joe, and how is it supported?

---

JM: How do we argue a point when you don't fully understand the topic? Two ways (a) I can spend hours teaching you the subject on this web page (inefficient and quite frankly, not worth my time) or (b) you can learn a bit more about the subject by taking a few courses and reading a bit more deeply and then develop your thesis again. Frankly, if you do either (a) or (b) I suspect you won't tout your thesis anymore.CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]"JM: Well, duh! Humphreys referenced the source. I guess he thought no one would bother to check it?"
--What source would that be? (I am sure he referenced more than one) [/QUOTE]JM: Do you always argue about things without reading the relevant information? This is tiring. Read Humphrey's paper. Read the section in question. Notice the reference numbers and the graph, scan down to the reference section of his paper and find the reference. Now go to that source (pages cited) and find the real graph. What possible reason could you have for continuing to quibble about this WITHOUT bothering to look up the information for yourself?

quote:

---

"JM: You're missing the part about how rocks record magnetization and the correlation to continental sections. These leave you in a tough position that you have not yet recognized."
--A little more specific, do you mean stacked lava flow formations? Igneous, metamorphic or sedimentary rock? What is it.

---

JM: Yes. All of those.

quote:

---

--Or, we can continue with the assumption that I am relatively on the same level of understanding and I can say when I have the need for information (though research would be needed in any perspect).

---

JM: No, that would be deceitful. You are not on the same level as understanding (no personal attack meant, just the facts). I don't know what you do for a living, but you have shown (above) that you don't bother to read original references before arguing a point and also that you do not understand magnetostratigraphy, so how can you claim to be on the 'same page'? You can learn it, like everyone else, or you can continue to post naive assertions and 'hypotheses' that will get assaulted. The real way to do science is to develop your ideas completely and submit them for peer evaluation and ultimate publication. Right now, you still have a lot to learn. We all do, but there is no excuse for arguing in ignorance.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Oh I see. I was under the missunderstanding that you were trying to point out to me that there are spreading ridges producing continental plates.
--Now how does this contredict my model? I would most love to see how.

---

JM: You don't have a model! This is what I am trying to drill into your head. You have a naive conjecture which is incomplete because you have an incomplete understanding of the global picture. I can't repair your conjecture for you!

quote:

---

"JM: No, that would be deceitful. You are not on the same level as understanding (no personal attack meant, just the facts)."
--We have yet to engage in such a discussion, let us not run into conclusions befor you have enough information to do so.

---

JM: I have your posts. They can be interpreted in two ways (a) You don't know what you are talking about or (b) You are too lazy to post the details. Which is it? Based on what I have observed your 'model' is only a rough sketch that doesn't take into account much of the geologic record. Therefore, I assume by the naivete in your post that it reflects the naivete in your background. One way to show this is not the case is to take the time to post a complete model here (or on your own website).

quote:

---

"I don't know what you do for a living, but you have shown (above) that you don't bother to read original references before arguing a point and also that you do not understand magnetostratigraphy, so how can you claim to be on the 'same page'?"
--Very missunderstood.

---

JM: That's your fault for presenting a sketch instead of details. Don't blame your incomplete model on me.

quote:

---

"You can learn it, like everyone else, or you can continue to post naive assertions and 'hypotheses' that will get assaulted."
--I prefer the former, which has been done.

---

JM: If you've learned it, then you've chosen not to show it. All I am asking you to do is to develop a coherent and consistent model. Don't pick out the small parts you like and forget about the detailed implications.

quote:

---

"The real way to do science is to develop your ideas completely and submit them for peer evaluation and ultimate publication. Right now, you still have a lot to learn. We all do, but there is no excuse for arguing in ignorance."
--Great, then let us not argue through ignorance, I am glad this can be agreed.

---

JM: Does this mean you will now present the full argument with references, details and mathematical models? Please post it!

quote:

---

(Please Joe, I am waiting for something relevant (see my second comment))

---

JM: Me too. Why argue about an incomplete model? Once you give the details, we can have a fruitful discussion. Right now, I must conclude that you have a limited knowledge of geology.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

It's been a while since I read the article, but my recollection is that the nuclear model claims to have a strength in explaining the variations in the earth's magnetic field.

​

In brief, the reaction products that accumulate function as moderators of the reaction. They can slow or even stop the reaction; then as these moderating products disperse, the reactions can increase or restart. The magnetic field varies as the nuclear reactions vary.

​

This is getting quite far out on the fringe of the creation/evolution debate, but I give it a bump, to see if I can get a comment out of Joe Meert.

​

Moose

---

JM: Moose, this idea is quite intriguing and is largely one of those geochemical reservoir arguments. I certainly think it is possible that some Uranium could be in the core (along with K and Th), but I don't follow the arguments for such a high content as would be required by the model. Could it be there? Sure. Is the evidence compelling that it is there in substantial amounts. No. It's one of those interesting wait and see stories.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
Hey, just dropping in to post a reply to my question on if Humphreys misrepresented that magnetic field graph. He wrote back and in so many words, asked me to relay this information back.

​

David

​

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_01.asp

​

[This message has been edited by halcyonwaters, 08-23-2002]

---

We're all familiar with his excuse. Unfortunately, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of him either stupidly or intentionally misusing the data as we've shown here clearly. Humphreys was outside his area of knowledge and got caught in a freshman mistake. See the posts beginning with message 30 on this thread. Humphreys can Clinton this till the cows come home, but he got caught! He should read a bit more carefully when writing about things outside of his scientific expertise.CheersJoe Meert[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 08-24-2002]