I'm new here. I just want to make some statements.
1.)Im not the best typist-hang in there.
2.)I am a devout Christian and beleive in creation.
3.)Unlike some scientists I look at thiongs objectivly
4.)Evolution is plain wrong
ok- now that we are through that.
*-my response
I want to set some things straight.
Message 2 of 38
John
Wrong again. The rock spreading out from the mid-ocean ridges doesn't show stronger and weaker magnetic fields. It quite blatantly records flipped magnetic poles.
*I dont know if you realize this, but less that one percent of the ocean floor has been looked upon. 99 percent of what is on any map has never been seen and is therefore gueswork. As to magnetic reversals, no phenomenon has ever been seen nor has it been recorded. It has however been recorded to be weaker at points. This is because the "reversal" (AKA-weaker polarity) has cracked and been heated. 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. This magma covers/touches the basalt and weakens the polerity of this particular rock. On this suject, i would like to see REAL proof. Any one could write something and put it on the internet, this is just as plausable as aliens creating life(not very).
Message 2 of 38
John
You are right about one thing. A decay rate the likes of what you suggest could be measured and quite easily. Why hasn't it been measured by anyone not pushing a Biblical agenda? You couldn't miss a field decay rate like you propose.
*When most people see/record evidence a chain of events goes off in teir minds. I think it may have gone a little like this. "Hmmmmm, apareltly what I had first thought was wrong. All of the evidence I have taken goes against it. Hmmmmm, maybe I should change my stance." 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. If they were to let people know about evidence proving a section of their beleifs wrong, it might make someone come to Christ. They cant stand that so they censor their research. It is as simple as that.
Message 2 of 38
John
You, in fact are assuming something contrary to the evidence-- that the magnetic field and thus the c-14 has declined at a steady rate. The magnetic field has both increased and decreased over time, and so has c-14 production. But we know about this and can compensate for it, as well as cross check with other methods of dating.
*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.
Message 2 of 38
John
Sources?
Ever hear of contamination? It happens all the time. That is why serious scientists take multiple samples and cross reference them, rather than take one wierd date and chirp that the method doesn't work. Tell me, if you had twenty samples giving dates within 5% of each other and one or two samples giving dates 20% or more off, would you conclude that the 20 dates are wrong or the two wierd dates?
*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.
Message 2 of 38
John
I think you just demonstrated that you don't know what you are talking about. C-14 dating only works up to about 40 or 50 thousand year ages. So the most anyone could claim based on C-14 is that the Earth is at least 40-50k years old, not millions.
*Well, if he demonstrated that he dosnt know what he is talking about, 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. Does that not sound stupid. Wouldnt that mean that carbon dates of millions of years are incredibly false. Why are you trying to defend them? Duh!
Message 2 of 38
John
And of the tens of thousands of scientists working in relevant fields, only a couple of creationists have noticed? LOL...
*Relevant fields. 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.
™ Version 4.2
