|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,815 Year: 4,072/9,624 Month: 943/974 Week: 270/286 Day: 31/46 Hour: 3/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5707 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Charley,
Do you realize that Humphreys simply made up the reversals? Do you think that making up data to support your ideas is solid science? Do you know that Humphreys misrepresented the data of Coe et al? Do you think it's ok to misrepresent others in order to support your ideas? I've dissected Humphreys arguments here: Is the Earth I doubt you'll bother to read it since it contains things you may be scared of seeing in your protected young earth environment, but others may be interested. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Do you know that Humphreys misrepresented the data of Coe et al? He might of seen it as evidence from the rapid reversal due to the external forces that started the reversals were more energetic. But to the uniformitarists the flood never happened thus they disclude the trigger and assume a spontaneous process.
Do you think that making up data to support your ideas is solid science? It appears you agree with Humphreys for the past century and concludes that the dipole energy has fallen off more rapidly than the off-dipole terms. ---------------------------------------- The answer, quite frankly, is not much at all. Humphreys seems to think it is of some importance. He spends much time calculating the energies of the dipole and off-dipole terms (octupole, quadrupolar and higher order terms) for the past century and concludes that the dipole energy has fallen off more rapidly than the off-dipole terms. I don't dispute this, but do dispute the conclusions reached by Humphreys that this observation has anything whatsoever to do with the age of the earth. Is the Earth
Do you realize that Humphreys simply made up the reversals? I thought the reversals are cast in stone sort of you know, the problem might well be was there a causation as suggested by a Richard Muller that geomagnetic reversals are not spontaneous processes but triggered by external events which disrupts the flow in the Earths core. It appears to me this is more the premise of Humphreys that the takes into account catastrophic events in the Earths past, such as the biblical flood. If the earth gets shaken again will that reset the magnetic strengths and cause a new round of magnetic reversals. "If" Muller is right its more about external events that triggers them magnetic reversals and not necessarily a spontaneous process that can only be explained by an old earth. The Creationists believe the biblical flood was a catastrophic event that triggered some of the magnetic reversals and then by squeezing the data for the last 5,000 years you would tend to get a curve such as expressed by Humphreys. The uniformitarnists likely will they not date the index fossils by radioisotope dating methods and verify radioisotope dating methods by the index fossils which is it not a bit circular for them to say index fossil is proof that the magnetic reversals are old. The uniformitanists beliefs in an old earth is like weighing a fly on a truck scale making this kind of circular reasoning meaningless when the fly is them index fossils. ------------------------------- The Earth's magnetic north pole is drifting from northern Canada towards Siberia with a presently accelerating rate -- 10km per year at the beginning of the 20th century, up to 40km per year in 2003.[2] It is also unknown if this drift will continue to accelerate. A minority opinion, held by such figures as Richard A. Muller, is that geomagnetic reversals are not spontaneous processes but rather triggered by external events which directly disrupt the flow in the Earth's core. Such processes may include the arrival of continental slabs carried down into the mantle by the action of plate tectonics at subduction zones, the initiation of new mantle plumes from the core-mantle boundary, and possibly mantle-core shear forces resulting from very large impact events. Geomagnetic reversal - Wikipedia Edited by Charley, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: Better think again, I would never say that any physical effect lacked a physical cause. It is not just due to my background in physical science but is even my religion. You misunderstood. You sort if snidely remarked on how its basically impossible for water to rush up because it defies gravity. I'm telling you that its not impossible and gave you a reference of how water can rush up.
Do you know what happens to the geyser water after any "burst?" It falls back down to the ground, where much of it seeps back down to the geyser, gets reheated and pops back up in a cycle. Do you know why the water doesn't just keep going up? I'm not saying it was a geyser. How would I know that? I'm simply illustrating how water can come up. I'm sure stranger things have happened. What ever event happened in the distant past may never be known. All we can do is go by what we currently know about things. Its kind of like the First Cause. Are we ever going to know how life began? Its doubtful. But it doesn't stop any one from hypothesizing, nor should it deter us from investigation.
Do you know that any physical force over time will establish equilibrium with its environment? A physical force like gravity, for instance. This is why you can't have rock over ocean and ocean over air or over the vacuum of space. Are you going to tell me that there aren't underground springs? Are you also going to tell me that the earth's core couldn't heat up and create pressure in that spring? Water, indeed, can be under rock.
Why don't you just give up like Baumgardner and say..."and then a miracle occurred?" I do believe the Flood was a miracle. I have no contention with it. I'm adverse to most theories concerning the Flood being spoken about with certainty when the causation of such a thing would likely not be known. I think I've been pretty tame about the whole thing. All I've done is critique a book and relay what the author has written. I'm also relaying what Moses wrote. I'm not making any definitive assertions. All I have done is offer some hypotheses about how might it have been possible and what some of the telltale evidence might look like. "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5707 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: This makes no sense at all. Do you want to say it again, in English? Coe et al did not document reversals in the Steen's mountain anomalous sequence. They noticed a series of intermediate directions between flows containing normal and reverse directions. These flows, incidentally, are terrestrial lavas not submarine. These flows, by the way, contain evidence of erosion between them.
quote: Yes, but the field strength is still above what it was in the past according to the archeomagnetic measurements. You did not answer my question about Humphreys inventing reversals in the database where none exist. See if you can read the relevant sections again carefully. Or maybe you can show me a reversal in the archeomagnetic data that Humphreys used (hint: there are none). Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
It is nice to have you here again Joe but please do not waste your time on the likes of "Charley". He is a complete loon who just makes up crap as he goes along. I'm not sure if "troll" is the word but his posts smell like one.
It would be nice of you to use your scarce time where it will do some good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5707 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Thanks for the information and the welcome back. I'm definitely not here to feed the trolls.
Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4142 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
I'm fine with you saying it was a miracle, but it's a miracle with no evidence to support it and a huge amount to suggest it never happened.
Are you implicitly arguing that God divinically made the flood and left no trace whatsoever?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
As I recall several eras before the Dinosaurs had a % of oxygen far higher then it is today, allowing huge arthropods to evolve. Dragonflys with 12 feet wingspans, spiders the size of dinner plates... From wikipedia:
quote: quote: Two feet is not twelve ... and compares to the largest today:
quote: They don't list either the body length for Meganeura monyi nor the body weight for Megaloprepus caeruleata, so comparisons of anything but the wings is not possible here, and that is not valid for body size.
quote: The fact is that oxygen was almost non-existent early in the course of life on earth (until released by microbes), then it reached several high points, one roughly in the carboniferous period and another during the age of dinosaurs, and is lower now - with several oscillations in between. Multiple highs and lows are not explained by one (1) event. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
SUBBIE writes: Science is never, ever "positive" about anything. LOL! The way some of you people debate one would never ever think you believed that to be the case. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5707 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Not only without a trace, but with an 'anti-trace'. Apparently the flood left a geologic record full of evidence that disproves the global flood. A miracle indeed!
Science, AntiScience and Geology: An Update on the Forest Fires at Ghost Ranch Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
RAZD writes: The fact is that oxygen was almost non-existent early in the course of life on earth (until released by microbes), then it reached several high points, one roughly in the carboniferous period and another during the age of dinosaurs, and is lower now - with several oscillations in between. Where would one go for a source on this early low oxygen? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5707 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Here are some papers on the subject of oxygenation of the atmosphere;
Berner, R.A., Beerling, D.J., Dudley, R., Robinson, J.M., Wildman,R.J. Jr., 2003. Phanerozoic atmospheric oxygen, Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Science, 31, 105-134. Canfield D.E. and Teske A. 1996. Late Proterozoic rise in atmospheric oxygen concentration inferred from phylogenetic and sulphurisotope studies. Nature, 382,127-132. Canfield, D.E., Poulton, S.W., Narbonne, G.M., 2007. Late-Neoproterozoic Deep-ocean oxygenation and the rise of animal life, Science, 315, 92-95. Garrels R.M., Perry E.A. Jr., Mackenzie F.T. 1973. Genesis of Precambrian iron-formations and the development of atmospheric oxygen, Economic Geology, 68:1173-1179. one on biological implications Acquisti, C., Kleffe, J., Collins, S., 2007. Oxygen content of transmembrane proteins over macroevolutionary time scales, Nature, 47-52 Edited by Joe Meert, : No reason given. Edited by Joe Meert, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
LOL! The way some of you people debate one would never ever think you believed that to be the case. Well we can have a very high degree of confidence in those things that we know to be false. For example, Noah's Flood. Never happened. Anyone who claims it did is simply repeating a falsehood. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Should have said atmospheric oxygen. It was tied up in oxides, like the rocks today. The evidence is in the sedimentary layers of red iron that were not fully oxidized.
This was before aerobic bacteria evolved from anaerobic ones: the anaerobic ones released the oxygen as by-products of their metabolism - CO2 and CH4 (methane) (like some anaerobic ones today) - and plants then evolved to use the CO2 and release O2. http://gsa.confex.com/...1ESP/finalprogram/abstract_7607.htmhttp://gsa.confex.com/...1ESP/finalprogram/abstract_6525.htm http://gsa.confex.com/...1ESP/finalprogram/abstract_7978.htm It took a while for the atmospheric Oxygen to build up enough to make a difference. This is before any multicellular life existed. Also see Timeline of the evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added atmospheric to oxygen at end compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
You mostest hugest mistake is the "while giving birth". It didn't have to be "preserved" while giving birth and I'm sure wasn't. It only had to die while giving birth which we know happens; sometimes because of the birth itself other times just because of increased vulnerbility and others just bad luck. I know what you're saying, but I have to contend with it on the basis of what is the most reasonable assumption. Of course the two Icthyosaurs didn't have to be suddenly buried. But if they weren't, how is it that scavengers did not pick it apart, especially since maceration would greatly exacerbate the process of putrefaction. If it were buried very suddenly, that would serve to best preserve the specimens, no? That doesn't mean that is what happened, but it certainly would lend credence to it.
It is just our good luck that this one was preserved and found out of all that probably died while giving birth. Well, it certainly died while giving birth. There could have been complications, there could have been a congenital defect that killed the mother and the pup couldn't exit the birth canal. But I am astonished at how well preserved they both were. Besides, as far as I can tell, Icthyosaurs are chondrichthyes, like sharks, in that they are cartilaginous, not skeletal. Cartilage needs to be preserved quickly to make the imprints of their remains, which is why we rarely find shark remains. But I'm not certain that they are chondrichthyes. "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024