Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
2nd April 2003 at 08:38 PM Mechanical Bliss said this in Post #18
The oldest oceanic lithosphere is somewhere in the ballpark of 180 million years old.
We not only have the oceanic lithosphere record, but we can also look at magnetized basalts (or other rocks with magnetic minerals) on continents which can be even older--that's where paleomagnetism comes from and we can figure out the movement of the plates over time.
There's a great paleomap site out there that has animations of the data over long periods of time...I'm not sure if I can find it at the moment...
2nd April 2003 at 08:54 PM look said this in Post #20
Perhaps I should have clarified my magnetic field question. I'll try again.
The earth's magnetic field has been measured for the past 150 years. The records indicate that the field has been decaying much like the half-life spans of radioactive materials. The decay rate show that the field will not be capable of supporting life in approximately 2,000 years. Furthermore, reverse extrapolation reveals that only 20,000 years ago, the field would have been as strong as a magnetic star. Life would not even be capable of going through mitosis. The field would have been way too strong for even amoebas to live. The findings indicate that life was only possible for the past 6,000 to 10,000 years. Any information on that?
Woah, woah. Does this means that decay rates for radioactive isotopes are also consistant and constant or is there something extra super special about them?
__________________
"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
-Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine
2nd April 2003 at 11:54 PM look said this in Post #20
Perhaps I should have clarified my magnetic field question. I'll try again.
The earth's magnetic field has been measured for the past 150 years. The records indicate that the field has been decaying much like the half-life spans of radioactive materials. The decay rate show that the field will not be capable of supporting life in approximately 2,000 years. Furthermore, reverse extrapolation reveals that only 20,000 years ago, the field would have been as strong as a magnetic star. Life would not even be capable of going through mitosis. The field would have been way too strong for even amoebas to live. The findings indicate that life was only possible for the past 6,000 to 10,000 years. Any information on that?
No difference. Do you really think we haven't heard this one before--on this very forum even???
The Earth's magnetic field fluctuates in both magnitude and polarity--something well documented in the ocean basins and correlated with continental rocks.
Now that that's falsified and out of the way, I presented numerous other threads that falsify YECism. Furthermore, there was a topic to this thread.
...and since you brought up "radioactive materials," those nuclides with long half-lives also falsify YECism.
The evidence shows the earths field changes in strength and flip flops.
Oddly enough, none of this evidence (the YEC evidence, not the NASA evidence) would explain the magnetic strips on the ocean floor.
2nd April 2003 at 08:54 PM look said this in Post #20
Perhaps I should have clarified my magnetic field question. I'll try again.
The earth's magnetic field has been measured for the past 150 years. The records indicate that the field has been decaying much like the half-life spans of radioactive materials. The decay rate show that the field will not be capable of supporting life in approximately 2,000 years. Furthermore, reverse extrapolation reveals that only 20,000 years ago, the field would have been as strong as a magnetic star. Life would not even be capable of going through mitosis. The field would have been way too strong for even amoebas to live. The findings indicate that life was only possible for the past 6,000 to 10,000 years. Any information on that?
Sorry Look if we (I) sound condecending or short, however one thing you must understand is that some of the questions you are asking have been falsified here many times.
Many of us get tired when we present tons of information that falsifies the PRATT list (old "evidence" for YEC that has been falsified along time ago), and Tons of information that falsifies YEC and it is just ignored by people.
3rd April 2003 at 12:00 AM Mechanical Bliss said this in Post #23
...and since you brought up "radioactive materials," those nuclides with long half-lives also falsify YECism.
Could it be that it was designed to last that long? There is a paper out there that is gaining acceptance by it's peers. The paper says that the core of the earth really is a nuclear reactor and the fuel would have to have very long life spans to function that long. If you was designing a planet that depended on a nuclear reactor for the purpose of maintaining heat at the core, would you use radioactive material? Why don't somebody start a "ask the geologist" type of thread? I've got a lot of questions to ask. I don't want to start a thread for each question!
__________________
My Daddy owns the whole universe and Jesus is my older brother!!! To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
...and yet if the Earth/Solar System/Universe is only supposed to be 6,000 years old, there would be no nuclides that are extinct either--nuclides that decayed to a daughter and the daughter is more abundant than expected (and the daughter is purely radiogenic). It's also deceptive to create material with the appearance that it has existed for billions of years when it has only existed for 6,000.
It's not exactly a new concept that the major heat source in the Earth is due to radioactive decay either. The core of the earth, however, due to inferences made on the density distribution of the earth and its rotational moment of inertia is mostly of an iron-nickel composition. The outer core is theorized to be liquid--it is convection in this liquid metallic core that causes the earth's magnetic field to exist in the first place (the dominant dipole field, that is).
I have worked my way through this thread, and once more I have seen a thread distracted from its subject by some trollish off-subject question. I exhort the participants, don't let creationists distract you. Point out to them the subject of the thread. Insist that they stay on topic, or ignore them.
__________________ "A belief which leaves no place for doubt is not a belief; it is a superstition." - Jose Bergamin
"You can't trust an honest man." --- Anonymous
"He does not believe who does not live according to his belief." -- Thomas Fuller
"The fact that the author thinks slowly is not serious, but the fact that he publishes faster than he thinks is inexcusable." -- Wolfgang Pauli
"He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" -- Micah 6:8
"It is because we believe absurdities that we are able to commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli
"Je ne suis pas marxiste." -- Karl Marx
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."-- Mark Twain
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein
I was pulling from memory. 
Linear Mode
