Quote:
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite correct, however the measurements taken on earth do not contradict either theory, over a longer time span we might be able to learn more. However to convince people of the facility of the dynamo theory we would need millions of years of data. I agree with you that several years is not enough, and I never expected that these sorts of things would convince anyone. If there was a way of taking a closer look at the way the magnetic field works, either in a lab this would be much more conclusive.
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here you say 'quite correct', but later you say 150 years is enough to support rapid decay. Your being inconsistent. The reality 150 years is not enough data to show either case, because you have nothing to compare it to based on direct observations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fogus
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
|
Same as above. I agree. You say a “few” years is 150 years. I don't think that 150 is “few” but I don't think that 150 is enough to come to a definite conclusion through pure observation of the earths magnetic field. However I should like to talk to a geologist about when we can expect the next reversal and when we can expect the field to begin to change its rate of decay, or increase in power.
“The first thing that we can observe about the magnetic field is that its strength is decaying. Over the past 150 years, scientists have been making careful measurements of the strength of earth's magnetic field, and these measurements tell us that over time, the earth's magnetic field is getting weaker.[quote]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
150 years is definitely a few years in terms of either view. It does not show over time that the earth's magnetic field is getting weaker because we have nothing to compare it to in terms of the 'direct observation'. Scientists have the indirect observations to compare the data to. If your going to present this as an arguement you have to come up with more direct data to compare this to to be valid.
-
Quote:
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What dating methods show the earth is far younger?
|
None of these examples qualify as long term dating methods. I have seen them quoted before. Some of the more obvious bogus ones I will respond to here. Others I will give more details later. For most dating methods to be valid the elements have to be trapped with their isotopes in a rock or organic material in a way to prevent or limit exchange with the environment to show decay rates. The examples sited below mostly do not meet this criteria.
helium in atmosphere, helium in ground
'General statements about helium in the air and ground say nothing about dating a long earth history.
build up of c 14.
'Carbon 14 is not used to support a long history earth. It is only used for recent dating and correlated with stratigraphy. Some of the best data correlates C14 data with annual seasonal cyclic layers in lake sediments that have a continuous deposition sequence of thousands of years. The changes in C 14 and the related isotopes are taken into consideration in modern uses of this dating method.'
natural plutonium
oil leaks
oil pressure
uranium in sea, sodium in sea, sediment in sea, potassium in the sea
Elements in the sea cannot be used in dating methods because they are in constant change in equilibrium with the environment. Elements have to traped with their isotopes to be used in dating methods.
rotation of spiral galaxies
The speed of rotation and the vast distances support a long history. I answered the bogus arguement provided by AIG before. They used time dilation and event horizon to provide a terribly weak and hopeless arguement for squeezing billions of years of time at the speed of light into a few thousand.
internal hear of Io
titans methane loss
Short term observation, meaningless.
peat bog growth.
peat bog growth? Are you comparing this to literally hundreds of coal deposites in between thousands of feet of cyclic deposites of sandstone, shale and limestones? These deposites show individual river systems, lakes and other features we see in places like the Congo and the Amazon. This is bogus beyond belief.
oldest living plants.
The seasonal growth rings of the world's oldest plants correlate well with the seasonal layers in lake and sea sediments which cover a much longer time in history and provide good evidence for a long history of the earth.
earths magnetic field.
Already answered that one. 150 years is not enough data to show anything unless you can come up with other data to compare it to.
meteor dust
decay of comets
(Just to name a few) I have been looking for a full list, and I will let you know, first thing, when I get one.
The other stuff about the bogus flood evidence I will respond to next. The articles from AIG do not come up with enough water nor do they present any good stratigraphic evidence for a world flood.
The bottom of the sea is mostly volcanic and far from a source of sediments, but the limestone deposits and coral reefs in the sea like in the Gulf of Mexico region and the Pacific Islands support without question a long hisory of the earth.
The thousands of feet of limestone deposite with vast coral reefs is one of the best stratigraphic evidence for a long earth history that cannot be explained in any way by a flood or a short history of the earth.