|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: magnetites, the old earth's ally | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Hmm, an interesting topic and one that I am keenly familiar with
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert Here's the problem QS. Ye-creationists originally denied reversals. Now they accept them, but they claim they are due to the flood (at least according to Humprehys). In terms of your sea-floor story, i think it is very important to point out that the reversal pattern observed in the magnetic tows are actually intensity fluctuations that were interpreted as reversals. Later drilling on the ocean floor and land sequences confirmed the reversal signature interpreted from the magnetic anomalies and helped place continental drift on firm footing. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Their claim is that the flood caused rapid reversals of the earth's magnetic field. Go figure. If correct, it requires some alternative inner core-outer core dynamics that don't make any sense to me. You are correct that magnetostratigraphy is used as a chronological tool. The reversal pattern in the rocks is random which makes matching patterns easy. The reversal stratigraphy is tied to an absolute time scale via radiometric dating. The nice thing is that magstrat can be used to date rocks that are otherwise undateable (lack of fossils or radioactive material). It works quite well. In fact, it works so well that oil companies are willing to pay to use this information in exploration. That tells you all you need to know about how valuable this information is! Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
JM: TC, you and your creationist colleagues should stay up with the literature and should try to read it with an eye toward understanding. Coe and Prevot did not document a rapid reversal. They did document (what they thought) was a rapid excursion---different than a full reversal. They have now backed off their earlier claim after examining more of the Steen's mountain. As for Humphrey's, he misused a diagram out of a text book and called it rapid reversals. The diagram he used (copied incorrectly) did not show reversals in the archeomagnetic record, but showed intensity fluctuations (no reversals) through time. Humprhey's doctored the diagram and argued they were reversals! Poor scholarship (if not downright dishonesty) does not make a strong case for your argument.
Let me ask you a question. People generally won't spend money on ideas that don't work. Petroleum companies pay geologists a lot of money. How much money have petroleum companies thrown at ye-creationist geology in order to help them increase the bottom line? How much have they thrown at Humprhey's? Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-14-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
So How about it TC? Are you going to continue to use this false information ala Kent Hovind? Or will you correct the information and come up with an alternative excuse for rapid reversals?
Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
TC: How about it? Will you be the first creationist to stop using the Coe and Prevot studies incorrectly?
Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
ENTIRE TC CONJECTURE SNIPPED ABOUT TRYING TO SHOW RAPID REVERSALS:[/B][/QUOTE] JM: Here's the bottom line rub. There is no evidence for rapid reversals on earth. The Coe and Prevot evidence is not evidence for rapid reversals. Your flood scenario is so absurdly naive as to be useless in your argument. In some cases, an argument is worth pursuing, but in other cases, both parties need an adequate background in the points they are trying to argue. You don't seem to have that background as evidenced by your misuse of data and misrepresentation of the magnetic polarity history on earth and land. Bring us a coherent argument and I promise to give you a reasoned response. Bring nonsense and it's not worth anyone's effort to respond. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: 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. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: 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. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Please re-read my question. Don't supply me with a laundry list from Walt Brown's home page. Answer my questions, they are specific enough. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Some Deception from Humphrey’s
link: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-242.htmThe following refers to a figure in Humphrey’s paper on rapid reversals: quote: Reference Number 7 is to the discussion of archeomagnetism given in Merrill and McElhinny. The actual graph from that text is shown here:
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/aborig.gif Compare it to the one in Humphreys paper:
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/humphrey.gif Notice what he has done. He has produced a mirror image of the actual figure and re-labeled it including the change to a zero line in his figure. The original figure shows intensity variation about the present earth’s field strength, but no reversal! So, I ask, is it ok to mislead others to prove your point? CheersJoe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: 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 [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-17-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: The earth's field reverses polarity completely. The graph (the real one) is only for the past 7000 years. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: 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. Do you acknowledge Humphrey's deception? Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
JM: I would note the same problems with Gould. Scientific integrity and the alteration of data is serious stuff. Apparently, it's no big deal if you're using deceit to support God. Now how about the other question? Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
just bumping
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024