The Flood

Baumgarder is a good geodynamical modeler when he uses reasonable values in his models. The problem is that when he uses real values, he gets answers that don't fit his young earth perspective (but publishes old ages anyway). When he uses unrealistic values, he gets a flood, but runs into other problems. Here are a couple of links you might want to consider when dealing with creationists who talk on both sides of their mouthScience, AntiScience and Geology: A conversation with creationist John Baumgardner
THE DEPTHS OF THE OCEANSCheersJoe MeertPS: Here's some problems with magnetic field arguments (though not specifically the issue you brought up).Is the Earth

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 EarthI 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.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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).CheersJoe Meert

Thanks for the information and the welcome back. I'm definitely not here to feed the trolls.CheersJoe Meert

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 RanchCheersJoe Meert

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 implicationsAcquisti, C., Kleffe, J., Collins, S., 2007. Oxygen content of transmembrane proteins over macroevolutionary time scales, Nature, 47-52Edited by Joe Meert, : No reason given.Edited by Joe Meert, : No reason given.

Not to be argumentative, but water can and does flow uphill for short distances. This is not a big deal since it happens a lot in mountain streams. It is a special occurrence (related to the momentum of the water) and not a regular situation. I think ramjets and syphons are also examples where water can flow up (although technically still down a pressure gradient)CheersJoe MeertEdited by Joe Meert, : No reason given.

We have to be careful when we define things in science. Technically speaking there is water in the mantle, but it's bound in such a way as to be totally irrelevant to the flood models. Water in the biotite lattice does not threaten Noah or any of his animals.CheersJoe Meert