magnetites, the old earth's ally

Maybe you don't understand, TC, so I will try to explain. Coe and Prevot did not measure a magnetic reversal and Humphreys did not show magnetic reversals in his chart. So, how can you say from this data that magnetic reversals are sudden in nature? This make no sense at all and completely trashes your credibility on the subject.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: You know what's even worse? The graph he used is for one aboriginal site in Australia. Those aborigines were making fires right on through the flood!

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

---

Absolutely mind-boggling. Do you think TC understands how he has been deceived yet?

[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.

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.