magnetites, the old earth's ally

--The 'Magnetic Flips', more accuratelly magnetic reversals are indeed real. This should account for special effects of a liquid conductor, like the molten metal of the earth’s outer core. If the liquid flowed upwards (by the effects of convection cold fluids sink and hot fluids rise) this would sometimes make the field reverse swiftly. These plates would have sharply cooled the outer parts of the core, driving the convection.1. - D.R. Humphreys, ‘Reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the Genesis Flood,’ Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, 2:113—126, 1986.2. - Humphreys, D.R., Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the flood, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, 2:129—142, 1991.

quote:

---

Dr Barnes, who had opposed field reversals because no mechanism could be demonstrated, responded (p. 141): 'Dr Humphreys has come up with a novel and physically sound approach to reversals of the magnetic field.'

---

quote:

---

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 Prvot 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.²

---

1 - R.S. Coe and M. Prvot, ‘Evidence suggesting extremely rapid field variation during a geomagnetic reversal’, Earth and Planetary Science 92(3/4):292—298, April 1989.2 - .S. Coe, M. Prvot and P. Camps, ‘New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal’, Nature 374(6564):687—692, 1995AiG - http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3317.asp
AiG - http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3397.asp-------------------------
Coe, R. S., Prvot, M. and Camps, P., 1995. New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal. Nature, 374:687—692.
-------------------------
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3397.asp
-------------------------

quote:

---

A decade ago, Prvot and Coe (and colleagues) reported in three papers the evidence they had found of extremely rapid changes of the Earth’s magnetic field recorded in lava flows at Steens Mountain in southern Oregon (USA). Scientists regard Steens Mountain as the best record of a magnetic reversal because the volcano spewed out 56 separate flows during that episode, each of these rock layers providing time-lapse snapshots of the reversal. Within one particular flow, Prvot and Coe discovered that rock toward the top showed a different magnetic orientation than did rock lower down. They interpreted this to mean that the field shifted about 3 a day during the few days it took the single layer to cool. Such a rate of change is about 500 times faster than that seen in direct measurements of the field today, so,

​

most geomagnetists dismissed the claim by applying the principle of least astonishment ‘it was easier to believe that these lava flows did not accurately record the changes in the earth’s magnetic field than to believe that there was something fundamentally wrong with the conventional wisdom of the day’

​

There the story would have ended, except that Coe and Prvot have continued their painstaking work. Now they have reported that the rate at which the orientation of the ancient magnetic field rotated reached an astounding 6 per day over an 8-day period, and have argued that these field changes recorded in these lava flows at Steens Mountain do reflect changes in the Earth’s main magnetic field.

​

These findings veer far from the textbook image of how the Earth is supposed to work. Says Roberts of the University of California, Los Angeles, ‘to a theoretician like myself, these results are almost inconceivable’. Yet earth scientists lack a firm understanding of the Earth’s magnetic field. According to current theory, swirling currents of molten iron within the Earth’s outer core create a dynamo that powers the magnetic field. It is believed that once every few hundred thousand years, the field flips orientation, swapping north pole for south pole. These so-called magnetic reversals supposedly take about 10,000 years from start to finish.

​

Most geophysicists questioned the original finding. ‘I can’t really understand the mechanism’, says Hoffman of California Polytechnic State University. In the face of this conundrum, some geophysicists are trying so far unsuccessfully to pin the rapid shifts on something other than the core itself. Critics have thus pointed out that the magnetisation might not be primary; it is not uncommon to find lava flows that have been remagnetised long after they cool, for example, because of chemical alteration. Thus they concluded that the alleged rapid changes in the Earth’s field really reflect an imperfection in the magnetic recording process, an ‘artefact’ according to Bloxham of Harvard University.

​

However, Coe and Prvot (with Camps) have now tackled such criticism head-on, making a convincing case against the ‘magnetic artefact’ argument. The two lava flows they have studied have quite different magnetic properties and yet show similar signals, making it harder to blame some glitch in the record. Hoffman agrees:

​

‘We haven’t found anything really questionable about the rock magnetics.’

​

Similarly, they have convincingly countered other hypotheses, such as that the changes in the magnetisation reflected changes in the external magnetic field associated with, say, a magnetic storm.

---

------------------

"TC: How about it? Will you be the first creationist to stop using the Coe and Prevot studies incorrectly?"
--I just had it finished about 3 minutes ago but I hit backspace too many times and it backed my browser a couple of pages so give me about another hour or so and I will again comment on the reversals.(Oh thats gotta hurt! (Ugh!))------------------

--Sorry for the relatively rudimentary response, I was a bit frustrated from the first attempt. "I am tempted to leave this here, but feel the need to refute rapid polarity change as the norm, rather than a low field intensity effect. Arguing from within your framework, I would expect this phenomenon to be well documented, since the volcanic/tectonic processes at the time, you claim were much, much higher, as such, so would be the rate of lava extrusion."
--I see no reason why it would not be the way it is. The Flood model has compression, intensity, and catastrophic events. The sedimentary layers and lava flows were layed down in a sequencial order we can agree, and lava flows were layed down in a sequencial order as well. To illustrate:This is the uniformitarian model:
-------------------------------------------------
1-------2-------3-------4-------5-------6-------7This is the Flood model-------------------
1--2--3--4--5--6--7--The numbers could illustrate the lava flows, in either model your going to have corroboration for sedimentation and other depositions. Rapid reversals could be illustrated with the Flood model of deposition, and gradualistic reversals could be illustrated in the uniformitarian model. Indeed these are big underlying assumptions carrying out the validity of the evidence."If the magnetic polarity were frantically reversing, then this effect would be present in most lavas. But it isn’t. Furthermore, sedimentation rates of deep sea cores are measured, & at no point is there any evidence of catastrophism."
--What is the location of these drilled cores in oceanic crust?"Indeed, there is no reason to believe that the sedimentation rate at any given location, is particularly different in earlier years, when lower layers of cores were deposited."
--Actually this is an extreamly large variable in oceanic sedimentation."In other words, surface sedimentation rate is entirely in concordance with the layers beneath it. These layers, show magnetic polarity reversals at large time intervals, currently in the 100,000s of years order, these are corroborated by the sea floor spreading stripes of polarity reversal."
--Does this not carry a fundamental assumption? See first response."Given the calm conditions necessary for deposition of this nature, it is reasonable to assume that it never occurred during such catastrophic conditions as the creationist flood."
--You imply that sediment deposition requires calm conditions?"Yet the paleomagnetic layers are still there, corroborating the seafloor spreading basalt magnetic alignment. All of this means that; Magnetic polarity stripes, velocity of seafloor spreading measurements, & sea floor cores magnetically aligned sedimentary layers, remains as evidence of the relative constancy of sea floor spreading."
--Not exactly, it means that the rate of seafloor dispersion has been the same rate in a contrasting ratio to paleomagnetic anomalies.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-17-2002]

--Then please take into account my post #21, as it is quite a different point and different view on the subject than my quotes from Humphreys and AiG. If you must, ignore that first post, but I see absolutely no reason why if deposition of these lava flows, as I explain in #21, were deposited in a short time, that this could not be evidence for rapid reversals.------------------

"You don't show that in your post. You say 'what if'. I say show me the evidence that your 'what if' is correct. There are so many elementary flaws in your 'what if' that it is difficult to know where to begin. So, you start. Provide the evidence that your 'what if' scenario in post 21 actually happened."
--Actually I don't make a statment in that post on a 'what if', nor do I even say the word 'if'. In my post, I made this point:

quote:

---

--I see no reason why it would not be the way it is. The Flood model has compression, intensity, and catastrophic events. The sedimentary layers and lava flows were layed down in a sequencial order we can agree, and lava flows were layed down in a sequencial order as well. To illustrate:

​

This is the uniformitarian model:
-------------------------------------------------
1-------2-------3-------4-------5-------6-------7

​

This is the Flood model

​

-------------------
1--2--3--4--5--6--7

​

--The numbers could illustrate the lava flows, in either model your going to have corroboration for sedimentation and other depositions. Rapid reversals could be illustrated with the Flood model of deposition, and gradualistic reversals could be illustrated in the uniformitarian model. Indeed these are big underlying assumptions carrying out the validity of the evidence.

---

--So is it this rapid deposition that require evidence for? In order for that to be true, the flood must be able to deposit it, nor should a process thought to take millions of years actually take that long contredicting the flood scenario.--My quotation seems perfectly feasible, if infact these sediments and lava flows do not represent eons of time and could be deposited in the flood scenario without contrediction than it is completely plausable.------------------

"JM: You don't need to use the word 'if' in order for an entirely 'iffy' scenario to be proposed. So, I ask you again. Where is the evidence that supports your scenario. I want testable details not a bunch of lines of different lengths. It's quite one thing to assert 'it coulda been' quite another to make your 'coulda been' supportable by data. So, let's hear your comprehensive, testable and coherent rationale for rapid reversal during rapid deposition of sediment and basalt that would leave a coherent and correlatable sequence of strata. Tell us, when did the flood begin (how do we recognize the onset)---you can use conventional geologic terms for the strata and we can take it from there. When did the flood end, give us the strata layers that mark the end of the flood. Tell us, in quantitative terms how much strata were laid down, what volume of lava was extruded, how long it would take the strata to solidify (with some concise and clear explanation that is verifiable in the real world), how long it would take that basalt to solidify (be careful here) and how often that would require reversals to take place. Make your argument consistent. I'll give you some time. Stop speculating with meaningless and vague assertions and argue your points like a scientist."
--In the Flood feasability discussion thread there was a list provided:Mid-Oceanic Ridge
Ocean Trenches
Seamounts and Tablemounts
Submarine Canyons
Coal and Oil Formations
Major Mountain Ranges
Overthrusts
Volcanoes and Lava
Metamorphic Rock
Limestone
Salt Domes--These are some of the various observed geologic structures that the Flood can explain, which one do you think is the most nonsense (please just don't say that you think they all are)?------------------

"Absolutely mind-boggling. Do you think TC understands how he has been deceived yet?"
--Hm... I thought I had allready exclaimed that my argument is different thatn Humphreys? Humphreys seems to be attempting to make it seem as if magnetic reversals are evidence only explainable by a young earth and rapid reversals. While my argument is quite different, being that reversed polarity is relatively consistant with the rate of seafloor spreading, whichever speed they are going.------------------

"JM: Sorry, but I don't follow your logic. Remember, the polarity stratigraphy is corroborated from land and sediment records. You need to include the land record in your model."
--I can't find a good reference, could I see how the polarity alignments are seen on continental land masses? It would be most helpful."Do you acknowledge Humphrey's deception?"
--I would hardly call it deception, as I am not going to wrongly accuse anyone, I would have to do the research or ask him myself to come to the same conclusion that you have, as you also would if, say Gould was caught in such a perdicament.------------------

"JM: I would note the same problems with Gould. Scientific integrity and the alteration of data is serious stuff."
--I would hope that we would take note of such a thing, and I would expect that your 'own kind' per se would most likely make sure it is absolute before discrediting your scientists."Apparently, it's no big deal if you're using deceit to support God."
--If I found such a thing to be easilly apparently true, I would look down uppon it with fire in my eyes."Now how about the other question?"
--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: 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 )"JM:Huh?"
--I quote myself (I believet his is what you were refering to when you said 'Now how about the other question?')

quote:

---

--I can't find a good reference, could I see how the polarity alignments are seen on continental land masses? It would be most helpful.

---

quote:

---

...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: 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?------------------

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

"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]

"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]