Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   magnetites, the old earth's ally
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 9 of 64 (6803)
03-14-2002 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by quicksink
03-14-2002 8:45 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 8:45 AM quicksink has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 10:00 AM Joe Meert has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 11 of 64 (6809)
03-14-2002 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by quicksink
03-14-2002 10:00 AM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
i don't quite understand what you are trying to say...
but I ask how the flood could have caused reversals...
and i am very interested in this manetite issue... we are learning plate tectonics and our teacher did mention that the issue solidified the drifter's beliefs.
But how could a creationist consistently explain this unexplained phenomena? Because the scientific community is so eager for an answer, wouldn't they pay a little attention to the creationist's claims?
and as I did a little more prying, I found that the pattern of magnetic reversals is actually a method of dating, like c14 and the like. Could anyone confirm this?
(I found that information from: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/hominid_succession_helen_lawrence.htm)
well, anyway
[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-14-2002]

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 10:00 AM quicksink has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 12:13 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 14 of 64 (6846)
03-14-2002 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by quicksink
03-14-2002 12:13 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 12:13 PM quicksink has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 16 of 64 (6892)
03-15-2002 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by mark24
03-14-2002 8:19 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mark24, posted 03-14-2002 8:19 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 18 of 64 (7061)
03-16-2002 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by quicksink
03-16-2002 2:46 AM


TC: How about it? Will you be the first creationist to stop using the Coe and Prevot studies incorrectly?
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by quicksink, posted 03-16-2002 2:46 AM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by mark24, posted 03-16-2002 7:40 PM Joe Meert has not replied
 Message 20 by TrueCreation, posted 03-17-2002 12:43 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 22 of 64 (7100)
03-17-2002 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by TrueCreation
03-17-2002 1:03 AM


[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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by TrueCreation, posted 03-17-2002 1:03 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 25 of 64 (7113)
03-17-2002 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by TrueCreation
03-17-2002 1:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--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.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by TrueCreation, posted 03-17-2002 1:32 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by TrueCreation, posted 03-17-2002 2:39 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 27 of 64 (7120)
03-17-2002 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by TrueCreation
03-17-2002 2:39 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by TrueCreation, posted 03-17-2002 2:39 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by TrueCreation, posted 03-17-2002 4:39 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 29 of 64 (7141)
03-17-2002 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by TrueCreation
03-17-2002 4:39 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
LAUNDRY LIST FROM WALT BROWN SNIPPED
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by TrueCreation, posted 03-17-2002 4:39 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Joe Meert, posted 03-17-2002 9:05 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 30 of 64 (7156)
03-17-2002 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Joe Meert
03-17-2002 6:03 PM


Some Deception from Humphrey’s
link: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-242.htm
The following refers to a figure in Humphrey’s paper on rapid reversals:
quote:
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.
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?
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Joe Meert, posted 03-17-2002 6:03 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by wj, posted 03-17-2002 10:24 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 32 of 64 (7181)
03-17-2002 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by wj
03-17-2002 10:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wj:
Joe, I must confess that I would have been hard pressed to recognise that the original graph and Humphreys' version were supposedly dealing with the same phenomenon. Has the man no shame?
A great example of biblical literalism warping perception.

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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by wj, posted 03-17-2002 10:24 PM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by edge, posted 03-17-2002 11:34 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 36 of 64 (7190)
03-18-2002 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Minnemooseus
03-18-2002 12:22 AM


quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
A question:
In the big picture of geologic history, does the Earths magnetic field indeed periodicly reverse, or is it just a matter of variations from minimums to maximums?
Moose

JM: The earth's field reverses polarity completely. The graph (the real one) is only for the past 7000 years.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-18-2002 12:22 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 38 of 64 (7344)
03-19-2002 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by TrueCreation
03-19-2002 6:02 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"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. Do you acknowledge Humphrey's deception?
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by TrueCreation, posted 03-19-2002 6:02 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by TrueCreation, posted 03-19-2002 8:30 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 40 of 64 (7366)
03-19-2002 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by TrueCreation
03-19-2002 8:30 PM


[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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by TrueCreation, posted 03-19-2002 8:30 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Joe Meert, posted 03-20-2002 3:51 PM Joe Meert has not replied
 Message 42 by TrueCreation, posted 03-20-2002 5:29 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 41 of 64 (7415)
03-20-2002 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Joe Meert
03-19-2002 9:29 PM


just bumping

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Joe Meert, posted 03-19-2002 9:29 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024