quote:
If you stick a hosehold magnet in a household oven and cook at about 1/2 its highest temperature it will lose charge completly. Now put this on a larger scale and it is like the ocean floor. You have been told that on this ridge hot magma comes up and "spreads" apart the plates. Well this hot rock (basalt I beleive)loses its magnetism when it becomes molten.
Wrong, the magnet loses its manufactured, strong magnetism. However, as the magnet resolidifies it will realign itself with the north and south pole. While this magnetism is not as strong as before the melt, it is still measureable. The same for the rocks on the ocean floor. As they solidify, the molecules in the rock align themselves with the north and south pole, and the power of the earth's magnetic field is recorded by the magentic strength in the solidified rock. Your argument fell apart when you failed to realize that the magnetism endowed by the earth's magentic field is much weaker (but measurable) than those found in magnets with artificially created magentic fields.
quote:
At least thats what I do when I am wrong. Maybe evolutionary scientists have taken the measurements. They just dont want people to know. They let their bias control what they say.
You might want to check your own camp for this type of dishonest activity. Many creation scientist organinization make their scientists take an oath that they will disregard data that conflicts with a literal translation of Genesis. Real scientists look at and report all of the data, creation scientists don't.
quote:
I'll make this short. Do you know for a fact that there were fluctuations, if so, when they occured, how long they lasted and how sharp the contrast was? I'd love to see how you traveled into the past. Also, many factors change c-14 rate, not just magnetic field.
How about the graph of the data:
Notice how the graph is a mirror image on either side of the ridge? This is because the sea floor is slowly spreading, and the slow changes of the earth's magnetic field are recorded as the rocks solidify at the ridge, and eventually split and spread out to their current position.
quote:
well I do that, take multiple measurements, but when I measure a standard peice of paper I expect to get 8.5 X 11 in, not 20 ft X 10ft on most of them. There are plenty of times that carbon dating has been proven faulty. In fact there are websites directed entirely to it. Yet you will never see that in a text-book.
Exactly, because dating done with the wrong sort of samples (eg dating aquatic samples with c14) is thrown out and never used to support any theory or hypothesis. Aquatic organisms absorb their carbon from the water, in the form of carbonate. Carbonate is made up of old carbon. Only terrestrial organisms that derive their carbon from the atmosphere (terrestrial plants) are dated with C14.
quote:
how can you sit where you are and type that the earth is millions of years old, and that it is proven by fossils, and then say that carbon dating on those fossils can only go to 40-50k years.
Fossils aren't dated with by C14, but by other methods. Overtime, the material in fossils is replaced by minerals in the surrounding sedimentary rock. When this happens, the igneous rock above and below the fossil are dated using isotopes with longer half lives, such as potassium/argon dating. This is off topic, but meteorites thought to have been formed at the start of the solar system have been dated to 4.5 billion years old by numerous isotopes (not C14).
quote:
If you want to talk about relevant. Darwin's education was in theology, not biology. How can you take his side if he never went into that field? Couple of creationists, no no no no no. Plenty of creationists as well as many evolutionists that receive the same findings and censor them.
Again, accusing scientists of lying. Please show the data that they are withholding or withdraw your accusation.
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 05-10-2004 04:34 PM
™ Version 4.2
