Why not here (re: Joe's geomagnetism web page)

Does the earth's magnetic field prove a young earth?Is the EarthCheersJoe Meert

No, it doesn't. In fact, it proves an ancient earth. You can measure the reversal of the magnetic poles along the seafloor. A direct calculation shows that the earth is much older than YECs claim.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I think you'll find that Joe agrees with you.

I know, roxr...I wasn't saying anything against him. I read his link, after all. I was simply pointing out that the earth's magnetic field, contrary to what some creationists might claim, actually shows an old earth.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I kinda figured, but couldn't tell from your post.

"No, it doesn't. In fact, it proves an ancient earth. You can measure the reversal of the magnetic poles along the seafloor. A direct calculation shows that the earth is much older than YECs claim."
--I completely agree with you. That is, if I assume that nuclear decay has been constant since the origin of the earth. Because as far as I am aware, that is the only thing that can directly support this conclusion.Cheers,
-Chris Grose[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-28-2003]

Well, there are direct measures that it has been constant over long periods of time. In addition, our understanding of the physics gives no way for it to change under earthly conditions so what would you take to be the most likely thing to be true?

quote:

---

Well, there are direct measures that it has been constant over long periods of time. In addition, our understanding of the physics gives no way for it to change under earthly conditions so what would you take to be the most likely thing to be true?

---

--I don't think it is that simple. You see, if the earth is indeed young (or at least, that a catastrophic flood of some sort is responsible for "500 Myr" of Geologic time) than an accelerated decay rate is an inevitable requisite. Therefore, it is (in my opinion) completely fine to put this falsification in a box temporarely because in the long run, the acceleration of the nuclear decay rate is the only thing I presume would not have been natural(indeed, if it wasn't and the genesis flood could be completely natural, who need's God? The atheist could believe the story of Noah and get away with it). All other things should be resultant from that occurrence. If the falsification of the flood event all comes down to the radioisotopic data, than I think an argument in its favour is very good. Of course, however, this has not happened; there are hundreds of difficulties and inconsistencies in catastrophic geology to be delt with, but I presume the radioisotopic decay rate will be all that remains in the end if catastrophic geology is indeed viable.--Any and all geomagnetic data on the seafloor and on land (or the fact of the many hundreds of geomagnetic reversals themselves) are not a very good falsification of catastrophic geology without coupling it with radioisotopic dating.Cheers,
-Chris Grose[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-28-2003]

Unless you couple it with the physics of heat flow and the cooling of rocks, or with sedimentology, ......

"Unless you couple it with the physics of heat flow and the cooling of rocks, or with sedimentology, ...... "
--Well, I admit, with as much as I know about cooling plutons and intrusive lavas, you probably would have a pretty good argument there. I havent done much on intrusive lavas, but I am currently doing some research on the mineral structure (mainly on crystal size data) of the ocean lithosphere and crust, hopefully I will come to some viable conclusions.Cheers,
-Chris Grose

TC, all the research you are going to try to do has already been done.The conclusions are very firm even after decades of careful work by lots of people (both believers and not). The earth is old, the flood did not happen.But so what? That does no damage to the real message of the bible unless you and others choose to allow it to do the damage. The real bible is NOT in danger from science it is in danger from those who try so hard to put it in the path of advancing knowledge. Don't be one of those!

I have no idea why Joe gave such a vague, non-discriptive title to this topic.I have added the "(re: Joe's geomagnetism web page)" to the title.Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

"TC, all the research you are going to try to do has already been done."
--If it has, I will discover it in my independent studies. But as far as I have done so, I sincerely doubt that it has been done. No one in the mainstream community cares about putting in countless of tedious hours of work into figuring exactly what would happen with hydrothermal systems when plates are moving at catastrophic velocities. No one in the mainstream community cares about the implications for island arc volcanism with high subduction velocities. It seems to me that most of the concerns of catastrophic geodynamics are not concerns of the mainstream community.Cheers,
-Chris Grose

"I have no idea why Joe gave such a vague, non-discriptive title to this topic.
I have added the "(re: Joe's geomagnetism web page)" to the title."
--He posted this a few days back on the christianforums board for discussion, I think he subconsciously assumed we knew that.Cheers,
-Chris Grose

"But so what? That does no damage to the real message of the bible unless you and others choose to allow it to do the damage. The real bible is NOT in danger from science it is in danger from those who try so hard to put it in the path of advancing knowledge. Don't be one of those! "
--If it was so detrimental to my faith, I would not readily assert that I have no definite conclusion regarding how old the earth is or whether a global flood occured some time in the recent past. I am not a YEC. I merely say 'us' and 'we' when refering to young earth research because it is easier to say.Cheers,
-Chris Grose