Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

shunyadragon · Feb 11, 2004, 01:09 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
fogus
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.

I put forward that the rapid decay conforms to reality more closely than the dynamo thory. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The problem with rapid decay is that it is not a legitamate theory or a view of the nature of the history of the magnetic field because it is only based on recent measurements of the fluctuations in the magnetic field. The 'Creation Science' advocates simply latched onto it because it showed a rapid change. Unfortunately there is not enough direct long term 'direct measurements' that would fit the requirements of the 'Creation Science' advocates to confirm the 'young or old earth' view. But if you correlate these direct measurements with the 'indirect measurements' which the geologists use the data definitely fits the cyclic pattern of changes in the magnetic field over millions of years. How can a few years data concerning the changes in the strength of the electric field be used to draw any conclusions of the long term fate of the electric field?

<blockquote>Quote:<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.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I am not sure how a few years data would make geologists uneasy. I am a geologist and a few years data on anything couldn't make me uneasy.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
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.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

What dating methods show the earth is far younger?

<blockquote>Quote:<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. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Preconcieved notions? There isn't any evidence for a world flood. Where do you get that much water?

Feb 11, 2004, 01:09 am	#227 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by fogus 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. I put forward that the rapid decay conforms to reality more closely than the dynamo thory. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The problem with rapid decay is that it is not a legitamate theory or a view of the nature of the history of the magnetic field because it is only based on recent measurements of the fluctuations in the magnetic field. The 'Creation Science' advocates simply latched onto it because it showed a rapid change. Unfortunately there is not enough direct long term 'direct measurements' that would fit the requirements of the 'Creation Science' advocates to confirm the 'young or old earth' view. But if you correlate these direct measurements with the 'indirect measurements' which the geologists use the data definitely fits the cyclic pattern of changes in the magnetic field over millions of years. How can a few years data concerning the changes in the strength of the electric field be used to draw any conclusions of the long term fate of the electric field? </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.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I am not sure how a few years data would make geologists uneasy. I am a geologist and a few years data on anything couldn't make me uneasy. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by 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. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What dating methods show the earth is far younger? </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. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Preconcieved notions? There isn't any evidence for a world flood. Where do you get that much water? The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .