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:   The Flood
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 136 of 188 (385282)
02-14-2007 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by kuresu
02-14-2007 9:41 PM


Re: This "dynamic-decay" theory (Evidence of the Flood)
the earth will shake such as it has not shaken since its beginning that genesis suggests in the beginning was the earth and heaven created(explains the earlier rapid magnetic reversals).
I hope you'll excuse me for explaining just how shaking predicts magentic reversals.
A Creationist Theory for Reversals and Fluctuations
The validity of the data required a new theory to explain them. In 1986 I suggested that strong flows of the fluid in the earth's core could produce rapid reversals of the field during and after the Genesis flood.[9] The resulting disturbances in the core would cause the field intensity at the earth's surface to fluctuate up and down for thousands of years afterwards.
This "dynamic-decay" theory is a more general version of the free-decay theory, since it takes account of motions in the core fluid. Dynamic decay explains the main features of the data, especially several features evolutionists find puzzling. In 1988, startling new evidence was found for the most essential prediction of my theory--very rapid reversals;[10] and in 1990, I showed a specific physical mechanism for such reversals.[11]
Conclusion
At present, the only working theory for the origin, fluctuations, rapid reversals, and decay of the field is a creationist theory--a theory that fits all the data. Thus, according to the best theory and data we have, the earth's magnetic field certainly is less than 100,000 years old; very likely less than 10,000 years old, and fits in well with the face-value Biblical age of 6,000 years.
The Institute for Creation Research
unless you mean like a really, really powerful earthquake, more powerful than has ever been recorded or can even be possible w/o destroying the earth.
Yep, Forgot the exact scripture but like a really really powerful earthquake. Heaven and earth its said will be shaken, the earth will shake in orbit like a drunk, all the islands in the oceans will vanish the mountains flattened, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by kuresu, posted 02-14-2007 9:41 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by kuresu, posted 02-14-2007 10:19 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 151 by Joe Meert, posted 02-15-2007 8:26 AM johnfolton has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 137 of 188 (385283)
02-14-2007 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by johnfolton
02-14-2007 9:59 PM


Re: This "dynamic-decay" theory (Evidence of the Flood)
what do you mean by rapid reversals?
here's a timeline of magnetic reversals going back 4 million years:
normal = today's polarity, ie magnetic north is with geographic north
reversed = opposite polarity, ie MN is with GS
chron = division of reversals, like era, period, and eon for geologic time scale. these are long lived (ie, 1 millionish years)
subchron = a short-lived (200,000 years) reversal occuring inside of another chron
Brunhes normal chron = 700,000 ya to present
Matayuma reversed chron = 2.5 mya to 700,000 ya
jaramillo normla subchron = 1 mya to .9 mya
olduvai normal subchron = 2 mya to 1.85ish mya
Gauss normal chron = 3.3 mya to 2.5 mya
Mammoth reversed subchron = 3.05 mya to 3 mya
Gilbert reversed chron = 4 mya* to 3.3 mya
*my graph stops at 4 mya, so I don't know how much older it is.
you'll note that even the short lived chrons in this graph are 200,000 years old.
also, these magnetic stripes form from lava flows. When igneous rock solidifies, any magnetic rocks trapped inside have their polarization frozen. This polarization cannot change unless the rock is completely melted again.
tell me, how the hell can a flood that lasted no more than a year change the polarity of the earth's polarity at least 7 times? how can the igneous rock cool quickly enough? (in the atlantic ocean, it takes hundreds upon thousands of years for igneous rock to cool appreciably). Never mind that, but how do you explain the formation of a huge chunk of the atlantic ocean in such a short time (seeing as how it's built out of what are essentially lava flows, and these flows outpour very slowly). At the same time, you're gonna have to explain how the pacific ocean shrunk by the same amount in a single year.
while, I might add, keeping noah alive, or else, bye-bye man.

"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant
" . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloaf
Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by johnfolton, posted 02-14-2007 9:59 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by johnfolton, posted 02-14-2007 10:55 PM kuresu has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 138 of 188 (385290)
02-14-2007 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by kuresu
02-14-2007 10:19 PM


Re: This "dynamic-decay" theory (Evidence of the Flood)
tell me, how the hell can a flood that lasted no more than a year change the polarity of the earth's polarity at least 7 times?
Its said only since Christ birth that the last reversal since the biblical flood. Thus your 6 reversals previous to the present reversal happened in approximately 3 thousand years (figure 1).
The Institute for Creation Research
At the same time, you're gonna have to explain how the pacific ocean shrunk by the same amount in a single year.
How has the pacific ocean shrunk, thought its picture of Christ has not changed much except his weeping expressed expressed by the mid-ocean ridges. kjv Genesis 1:2 as the spirit moved upon the face of the waters. Do you have evidence that the pacific ocean actually shrunk?
http://www.spiralupdatenews.com/viewing.html
The Atlantic Ocean Plates its believed moved hydraulically quickly however perhaps not as far as some believe, something about africa size not matching up with South America. Presently the plates are presently only drifting in centimeters per year, the biblical flood senerio more correctly expresses the geology of the Atlantic Mid-Ocean ridges. What force do you believe would of pressed the massive amounts of water deep within the earth under the trenches. Its simply not believable that it all happened slowly centimeters a year, water hydraulics, etc....
-------------------------------
The fundamental problem with most evolutionary explanations of Pangea’s separation comes in their application of uniformitarian principles. Since we see the continents drifting only a few centimeters a year at present, then, according to uniformitarian thinkers, that must be the rate at which they have drifted for millions of years. This explanation fails to account for geologically catastrophic events on a massive scale. In truth, while the continents may have been connected in the past, they did not drift lazily apart over hundreds of millions of years.
Pangea and the Flood - Apologetics Press

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by kuresu, posted 02-14-2007 10:19 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by kuresu, posted 02-14-2007 11:22 PM johnfolton has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 139 of 188 (385294)
02-14-2007 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by johnfolton
02-14-2007 10:55 PM


Re: This "dynamic-decay" theory (Evidence of the Flood)
the rating is not just based off of current rates.
anyhow, the pacific has to shrink for the pacific to grow. the earth isn't getting bigger. besides, what do you think those trenches in the ocean are for?
the atlantic ocean doesn't grow due to hyrdaulics. why exactly the plates move is still somewhat of a question--we've hypothesis, but we do know that water doesn't play a big role (except for in causing melting to occur at lower temperatures deep in the fault lines). basically, the atlantic ocean is growing because the plates on both sides (at the far end from the ridge) are being sucked down. essentially, the atlantic is being pulled apart, not pushed apart. convection in the upper mantle might play a role in this, but as said, we're still a little uncertain as to how specifically the plates move.
you still really haven't answered my questions.
Its said only since Christ birth that the last reversal since the biblical flood. Thus your 6 reversals previous to the present reversal happened in approximately 3 thousand years
this doesn't gel with MAOR data. you want to squeeze 4 million years of geological history into 3,000 years? you do realize the consequences, right? this means that the reversals would happen on average of 430 years. never mind having miles upon miles of a widening expansion of the atlantic in such a short time. do you realize the heat invovled?
it doesn't gel with volcanic layers that have the magnetic reversals. you're asking for an insane amount of volcanic activity (considering that these chrons are determined by more than just a single layer at a single volcano--correlation is key, or else what you have is an anamoly) in 3,000 years. why is there no evidence of such in human history (in our collected stories, specifically. you'd think that with all this volcanic activity they'd notice and make mention of it).
anyhow, try answering my questions instead of invading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by johnfolton, posted 02-14-2007 10:55 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by DrJones*, posted 02-15-2007 12:05 AM kuresu has not replied
 Message 141 by johnfolton, posted 02-15-2007 12:19 AM kuresu has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 140 of 188 (385300)
02-15-2007 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by kuresu
02-14-2007 11:22 PM


Re: This "dynamic-decay" theory (Evidence of the Flood)
anyhow, try answering my questions instead of invading.
All you'll ever get from charley is gibberish and evasion.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by kuresu, posted 02-14-2007 11:22 PM kuresu has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 141 of 188 (385304)
02-15-2007 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by kuresu
02-14-2007 11:22 PM


Re: This "dynamic-decay" theory (Evidence of the Flood)
anyhow, the pacific has to shrink for the pacific to grow. the earth isn't getting bigger. besides, what do you think those trenches in the ocean are for?
Where do you think all the sediments covering the fossils came from? Never mind It was caused by the exposing of the mid-ocean ridges which while still malleable its believed to of naturally sprung upwards sucking the trenches inward as the tecktonic plates pressed downward on each side of the mid-ocean ridges the water was sucked under the trenches along the continental land masses.
Its simply much easier to contemplate than these plates are being sucked under the continental land masses. Do you realize how much friction it would take for the plates to be sucked under the continental land masses. The tecktonic plates are more likely floating toward the trenches not subducting, etc...
this doesn't gel with MAOR data. you want to squeeze 4 million years of geological history into 3,000 years?
It fits better than stretching it out to 4 million years.
you do realize the consequences, right? this means that the reversals would happen on average of 430 years. never mind having miles upon miles of a widening expansion of the atlantic in such a short time.
It called water hyrdraulics something about how water does not compress thus little to no heat being generated under the plates likely how they presently are able to float centimeteres a year without causing excessive earthquakes.
You can at times cause an earthquake simply by drawing oil out of the ground but you have entire plates moving centimeters a year. It can only be explained by water hydraulics that the plates are floating not subducting, which explains how they could miles during the biblical flood.
do you realize the heat invovled?
That the atlantic plates are moving on a layer of water no problem with the heat involved given the super sonic steam was cooled by the vaccums of space as the fountains of the deep pressed open the windows of heaven.
You do believe the super sonic steam erupting out of the earth would be capable of pressing back the atmosphere so that the water canopy above would have no atmosphere as super chilled waters slid inside the erupting waters expressed as rain. Its not much different in principle to how moist humid water rise and super cool downdrafts result alongside the uprising warm waters. With these super cells alined along the 45 thousand miles + of them mid-ocean ridges the entire earth was flooded its said in 40 days at which time its said God closed the fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven. kjv genesis 8:2.
P.S. I don't have all the answers but unfortunately if they exists its highly doubtful you will find answers to all your question at geology 101. Unfortunately doubt creationists have all the answers but because like you said all you will have in some instances is hypothesis not necessarily answers. I find that interesting as I find some of your hypothesis interesting though doubtful too, etc...
Creationists too have their hypothesis and it does appear to me its an young earth. I just can not accept the plates are being sucked inward because the mid-ocean ridges are rising. If the mid-ocean ridges are rising is more water being sucked inward in part causing he tecktonic plates to slide toward the trenches centimeters per year. With all this friction from your theory how is it even possible for the plates to move at all, surely you see the problem with your tecktonic plate theory. Perhaps not, but the friction problem goes both ways, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by kuresu, posted 02-14-2007 11:22 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by kuresu, posted 02-15-2007 1:03 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 150 by anglagard, posted 02-15-2007 5:41 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 142 of 188 (385309)
02-15-2007 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by johnfolton
02-15-2007 12:19 AM


Re: This "dynamic-decay" theory (Evidence of the Flood)
when you actually begin to understand how tectonic processes work, come back. this post is pure gibberish.
once you find out just what the earth looks like under the crust, come back. this post is pure gibberish.
and once you realize that a 4.5 byo earth does not conflict with religion, come back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by johnfolton, posted 02-15-2007 12:19 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by johnfolton, posted 02-15-2007 1:15 AM kuresu has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 143 of 188 (385311)
02-15-2007 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by kuresu
02-15-2007 1:03 AM


Re: This "dynamic-decay" theory (Evidence of the Flood)
once you find out just what the earth looks like under the crust, come back. this post is pure gibberish.
Last I heard they had not yet looked under the crust, all they find as they drill deeper and deeper into the crust is fractured rock and water, and guess what the Word says, that the fountains of the deep were all broken up. Funny thing is that when you look deeper and deeper into the earth all you find is evidence supporting the inerrancy of the Word.
and once you realize that a 4.5 byo earth does not conflict with religion, come back.
Seriously you surely know the earth fossils only supports a young earth, your index fossils you use to date magnetic reversals are bogus because no new elements formed since the earth was created, meaning the elements were created pre-earth.
Its a scam by the evolutionists to pretend the magnetic reversals happened over millions of years when they really have nothing to prove anything.
You know index fossil proves radioactive dating and radioactive dating proves index fossils, which simply proves the paleontologists are full of it(the circle game), etc....
when you actually begin to understand how tectonic processes work, come back. this post is pure gibberish.
If you get the chance check out Walt Browns hydroplate theory you will gain a better understanding of how the mid-ocean ridges formed suddenly.
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by kuresu, posted 02-15-2007 1:03 AM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-15-2007 1:53 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 144 of 188 (385317)
02-15-2007 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by johnfolton
02-15-2007 1:15 AM


Re: This "dynamic-decay" theory (Evidence of the Flood)
Hey, Charley. Someone told me you're a troll.
What do you say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by johnfolton, posted 02-15-2007 1:15 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 145 of 188 (385318)
02-15-2007 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by johnfolton
02-14-2007 9:17 PM


Re: This "dynamic-decay" theory (Evidence of the Flood)
The theory rests on Barnes' ideas about the decay of the Earth's magnetic field. Since those have been discredited the claim that it fits the data is false on two fronts.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by johnfolton, posted 02-14-2007 9:17 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by johnfolton, posted 02-15-2007 2:19 AM PaulK has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 146 of 188 (385319)
02-15-2007 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by PaulK
02-15-2007 2:04 AM


Re: This "dynamic-decay" theory (Evidence of the Flood)
The theory rests on Barnes' ideas about the decay of the Earth's magnetic field. Since those have been discredited the claim that it fits the data is false on two fronts.
Are you talking about Humphreys? Surely you realize creationists are discredited because they dare to believe in an young earth because of the fossil evidences. Just because you believe they are discredited does not discredit their hypothesis, perhaps in your mind it does but thats not evidence.
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by PaulK, posted 02-15-2007 2:04 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by PaulK, posted 02-15-2007 2:28 AM johnfolton has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 147 of 188 (385320)
02-15-2007 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by johnfolton
02-15-2007 2:19 AM


Re: This "dynamic-decay" theory (Evidence of the Flood)
quote:
Are you talking about Humphreys?
Yes, Hyumphreys releis on Barne's discredited ideas. Didn't you read the article you linked to ?
quote:
Surely you realize creationists are discredited because they dare to believe in an young earth because of the fossil evidences.
While it is true that creationists dogmatic refusal to honestly deal with the evidence for an old earth discredits them, Barnes' claims are themselves directly discredited
quote:
Just because you believe they are discredited does not discredit their hypothesis, perhaps in you mind it does but thats not evidence.
Then it's a good job that I didn't mean that isn't it ? The fact that Barnes' hypothesis has been directly discredited can't be so easily dismissed, can it ?
See here. Especially note this point:
Barnes measures only the dipole component of the total magnetic field, but the dipole field is not a measure of total field strength. The dipole field can vary as the total magnetic field strength remains unchanged.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by johnfolton, posted 02-15-2007 2:19 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by johnfolton, posted 02-15-2007 3:04 AM PaulK has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 148 of 188 (385322)
02-15-2007 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by PaulK
02-15-2007 2:28 AM


Re: This "dynamic-decay" theory (Evidence of the Flood)
Barnes measures only the dipole component of the total magnetic field, but the dipole field is not a measure of total field strength. The dipole field can vary as the total magnetic field strength remains unchanged.
I don't know what Barnes measured but Humpreys estimating the field intensity everywhere (in, on, and above the earth), we can calculate the total electrical "energy" stored in the field.
------------------------------
The average "intensity" of the earth's magnetic field has decreased exponentially by about 7% since its first careful measurement in 1829.[1] The field's intensity includes components of strength and direction and tells us the amount of force turning a compass needle northward. By estimating the field intensity everywhere (in, on, and above the earth), we can calculate the total electrical "energy" stored in the field. Such calculations show that the total energy in the field has decreased by about 14% since 1829.
The Institute for Creation Research

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by PaulK, posted 02-15-2007 2:28 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by PaulK, posted 02-15-2007 3:17 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 149 of 188 (385323)
02-15-2007 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by johnfolton
02-15-2007 3:04 AM


Re: This "dynamic-decay" theory (Evidence of the Flood)
Here's a detailed refutation of Humphreys' claims
Is the Earth's Magnetic Field Young?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by johnfolton, posted 02-15-2007 3:04 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 150 of 188 (385332)
02-15-2007 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by johnfolton
02-15-2007 12:19 AM


The Duck Evidence Hypothesis
Charley writes:
It can only be explained by water hydraulics that the plates are floating not subducting, which explains how they could miles during the biblical flood.
I thought only very small rocks floated on water as per Monty Python and the Holy Grail
The real question is did the continents weigh as much as a duck? Until that is established, we don't know if flood tectonics is a workable hypothesis.
Edited by anglagard, : Subtitle

Light things float and heavy things sink - any unbiased kindergardner
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God -Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by johnfolton, posted 02-15-2007 12:19 AM johnfolton 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