</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by
Geologists that believe in Noah's Flood, however, know that such an event did happen. Rapid decay theorists say that an event such as Noah's Flood explains these magnetic field reversals in the context of their theory.
This is religio-political interferance of science at its worst. The only reason a handful of people accept rapid decay theory is because their religious beliefs do not allow them to believe otherwise.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
The issue is not who believes it (be it a figure of authority or a majority of people or any one else), or why they believe it (if I say that 2 sides of a triangle are longer than a third just because I am a man, does that make it wrong?), or that you will get hurt if you believe it, or if it is “western” or “eastern”, or if it is old or young, or if a mean person believes it (if Karl Marx was a failure of a father does that make communism wrong?), or if the person making a claim lives the opposite of what he believes (just because Paul (in the Bible) killed Christians, does that mean that he is wrong in saying that killing is wrong?). The issue is whether it is true or false. Whether it conforms to reality or not.
I put forward that the rapid decay conforms to reality more closely than the dynamo thory.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by
The other consequence makes even more geologists uneasy. If you use the rapid decay theory to predict what the magnetic field was like in earth's past, you find out that the earth had to have been formed less than 10,000 years ago.
Which falsifies rapid decay theory. Seperate dating techniques show the Earth's age to be in the 4.5 billion year range. Dozens of dataing techniques show the Earth is older than 100,000 years. This "10,000" year old earth prediction by rapid decay theory is not a stunning revelation, but rather a stunning blow to the theory.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I contest the statement that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Most dating techniques show an earth which is far younger than 4.5 billion years.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by
Scientists whose preconceived notions rule out Noah's Flood and a young earth refuse to believe the most scientifically valid theory for the earth's magnetic field.
Scientists only have pre-conceived notions of an old earth because the evidence shows it to be true. The evidence is incompatible with a young earth.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
That is not definitive in the slightest. There are to many guesses that can be incorrect which scientists make to find the age of something with dating methods. There are MANY large discrepancies of the dating methods scientists use.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by
and thus most of the scientists who believe the rapid decay model are Bible-believing Christians.
Or more specifically young earth creationists. Plenty of Chrisitan theistic evolutionists and old earth creationists do not accept the rapid decay model.
I wonder, can anyone other than young earth creationists be found who subscribe to this rapid decay model?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
refer to my first response in this post.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by
This brings me to one of the most important points you will ever learn when it comes to science: There is no such thing as an unbiased scientist.
There is no bias like faith based bias
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
There is no bias like the bias of an evolutionist. (Or do you really want to argue like this?) You put a stigma on Christians to make them look like the most biased of people. We are biased, so are you. How do you measure biasness? And again it doesn’t matter if we are biased or not, the truth matters. Just because I am biased doesn’t mean I am wrong.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by
Instead, they rely on a theory that has been demonstrated to go against one of the major observables related to a planet's magnetic field!
Dr. Jay L. Wile is commiting a fallacy in his argument by claiming that because the dynamo theory is not bullet-proof, the earth is young.
This is not a "my theory or yours" situation, both can be wrong and regardless of the shortfalls of the dynamo theory, the rapid decay theory is far worse because one of its consequences is a young earth, which disagrees with tons of evidence and possibly common sense.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
What fallacy? He didn’t say that in that quote. I never remember him making such an inference. And if he did, that is not what we are talking about. I am discussing the validity of the rapid decay theory and the dynamo theory. You seem to do a great job of attacking me, and any one who I quote! I hope we can debate the ISSUES soon rather than people and groups of people. I don't care if he says that because triangles have three sides that the earth is 10,000 years old.