magnetites, the old earth's ally

"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."
--What source is this, and how did you come to the conclusion that this is Humphreys source as well?"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."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 am looking towards 'Plate Tectonics & Geomagnetic Reversals' for further references."I dare say, you should have done this in advance of arguing your point!"
--I 'dare' say, let us argue the point, what is this point Joe, and how is it supported?------------------

[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

"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)"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: 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."
--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).------------------

If I may contribute a bit to the debate

quote:

---

HOW MANY TIMES: Many, about half a million years apart on the average.

---

from:
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/earthmag/magnQ&A1.htm#q6This is very interesting. Now let's do a little math-500,000,000 years of history divided by a 500,000 year interval for magnetic reversals, you get 1000 reversals.Compress that into creationist time, and you have a reversal occurring every few hundred years. Wow!

[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:
[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]Just to help you out TC, here is the actual quote from Humphreys:"Unfortunately, the archaeomagnetic data do not support that assumption.[7] Instead, the data show that the field intensity at the earth's surface fluctuated wildly up and down during the third millennium before Christ (see figure 1). A final fluctuation slowly increased the intensity until it reached a peak (50% higher than today) at about the time of Christ. Then it began a slowly accelerating decrease. By about 1000 A.D., the decrease was nearly as fast as it is today."This paragraph directly preceded the graph that Humphreys altered. And here is the reference from his list:"7. [7] Merrill, R. T. and M. W. McElhinney. The Earth's Magnetic Field (London: Academic Press, 1983) 101-106."As you can see, he intentionally juxtaposed the reference, the altered graph and his narrative.The graphs are too similar to be discounted as a coincidence; even the assymetry of the first irregular peak is duplicated as a reflection. Face it, Humphreys is way out of line on this one.

"Compress that into creationist time, and you have a reversal occurring every few hundred years. Wow!"
--You would have it within a relative consistancy of sea-floor spreading (though still random occurances) so earlier on, you would have reversals much more frantic.-------------------

"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?"
--Please, hold the negative rhetoric, I was asking which source it was, and by your statments about the graph I can see what you were referencing."JM: Yes. All of those."
--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: 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."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."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."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.(Please Joe, I am waiting for something relevant (see my second comment))
------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-21-2002]

As far as I can tell there can be no reliable means to acertain the what information is the authorial one and relevant given the hacking ability on broacat web products that is not encoded ahead of time.The issue with the magents, any magnetization, on my guess without reading out the background is that it will show as I can easily with ethology that the Christian Heritiage is being edited out of the message. This was the problem I saw with broadcast media that I came over to the internet. There is a difference between TV and Internet yet this needs to be less worm hole eaten before the direct paths may be clear to any one with accessing materializations.I am not commenting directly on the slant but ICR people are as far as every time I checked reliable so if one needs authorical relevance ICR can be standard in C/E which says nothing for broadcasts generally but those thinking they have what "are" two ways of Maxwell will on braining it out during leasure find that the elites and not the christians or muslims disabused any greek hertiage that may mode the return to send differntly.My speech is getting harder to read becasue some one has hacked up the web and this is not a good thing no matter the difference of Maxwell's imaginary magentics on the sphere and the imaginary electricity of VR.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"JM: No, that would be deceitful. You are not on the same level as understanding (no personal attack meant, just the facts)."

​

TC:We have yet to engage in such a discussion, let us not run into conclusions befor you have enough information to do so.

---

Heres a novel concept for you TC actually present one of your "theories" as more than a series of disjointed facts with baseless assertions that physical processes happened many times faster 4,000 years or so ago....You know calculate how fast you need the plates to move, how much heat you need to achieve this, how the heat could have been generated, what physical constants would have to be different to achieve this and what physical laws must be ammended to allow this variance of constants.....If you do that we can have a meaningfull discussion about your "theory" so get that done and you might get more feedback than your wrong.....Why should the rest of us invest time and effort in your "theory" when you haven`t done the basic calculations to show how it may be feasible...Hmmm lets see now TC is a 15 year old Highschool student who has read some geology books...Joe is a professor of Geology who is also on the editorial pannels of not one but two geology journals....Honestly TC do you really think that you have a comparable level of knowledge?If you do your deluding yourself.....

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

The current issue (August 2002) of Discover magazine has the cover story "Nuclear Planet". It explores the theory that the earth has a substantial uranium core, the nuclear reaction of which, amongst other things, drives the magnetic field of the earth.It also has some discussion of the scientific communities shunning of radical ideas.Moose

"The current issue (August 2002) of Discover magazine has the cover story "Nuclear Planet". It explores the theory that the earth has a substantial uranium core, the nuclear reaction of which, amongst other things, drives the magnetic field of the earth."
--I'd have to be speculative of what they think of early earth evolution on this point. Seeing that uranium is a refractory lithophile element. So it will be tough if not unimaginable in a differentiating earth to have a Uranium concentrated Core.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-17-2002]

It's best to get the details from the article itself, but my recolection is that the author of the theory is aware of this objection and explains that because uranium only forms compounds with silicates in the presence of oxygen, and because the early earth possessed much less oxygen than today, that around 60% of uranium would not have combined with silicates to form less dense compounds and would in its much denser elemental form have sunk to the core.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
The current issue (August 2002) of Discover magazine has the cover story "Nuclear Planet". It explores the theory that the earth has a substantial uranium core, the nuclear reaction of which, amongst other things, drives the magnetic field of the earth.

​

It also has some discussion of the scientific communities shunning of radical ideas.

​

Moose

---

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[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 08-15-2002]