Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 92 (8856 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-17-2018 8:49 AM
198 online now:
Faith, kjsimons (2 members, 196 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 836,991 Year: 11,814/29,783 Month: 836/1,642 Week: 250/460 Day: 5/44 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   magnetites, the old earth's ally
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3539 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 61 of 64 (15585)
08-17-2002 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Minnemooseus
08-15-2002 10:53 PM


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.

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-15-2002 10:53 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
halcyonwaters
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 64 (16006)
08-23-2002 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by TrueCreation
03-21-2002 4:00 PM


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 4:00 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Joe Meert, posted 08-24-2002 7:38 AM halcyonwaters has not yet responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3539 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 63 of 64 (16025)
08-24-2002 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by halcyonwaters
08-23-2002 7:28 PM


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.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 08-24-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by halcyonwaters, posted 08-23-2002 7:28 PM halcyonwaters has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by edge, posted 08-24-2002 9:46 AM Joe Meert has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4392
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 64 of 64 (16027)
08-24-2002 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Joe Meert
08-24-2002 7:38 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Joe Meert:
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.

The most egregious part of Humphreys' escapade is that, as we found out earlier in our discussion with TB(?), he has given a whole generation of layman creationists the idea that he actually has data to back up his theory. This is really sad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Joe Meert, posted 08-24-2002 7:38 AM Joe Meert has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018