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.
No, they are not dating methods. Only in your head. They are patterns in rocks, and I agree with them, and they agree with me. So???
They are paterns in the rock created when the rocks set from a liquid state into a solid and the atoms which make up the molecules which makes up the rock were set in alignment towards the magnetic north pole at the time. Different layers layed down at different times point towards opposing poles and the frequency of that change is about 300,000 years. That number isnt just randomly pulled out of the air but it comes from using various dating methods to date the rock layers in question.
What polarity switch precisely do you mean? As the evidence shows, we simply have a decreasing field. I see no 'switch' in history, do you?? If so, do tell.
I don't mean any one particular polarity swich, but you can take a look at the Mid Atlantic ridge and see several.
Now, if you want to focus on the patterns in the rocks, of past magnetic field changes, that is fine.
Didn't I post a link here that said that they do not really even know why the field reversed in the past?? So, tell us, why do you claim it did!!!???
You might want to brush up on your English language because scientists saying they do dot know WHY it is happening does not mean that it is NOT happening, see the difference?
Ah, now we are talking! They don't really know what they are talking about. I know that. Might I suggest that they dump the same past state myth basis for their musings, and maybe they might get somewhere??!
The same state past "myth" will drop as soon as evidence is provided that the past was somehow in a different state. So far you have not done that in any of the threads you claim this nonsense.
Well, on the contrary, looking at real observations is a good thing. An honest thing. The fact that it happens to fit my theory like a glove is not something you can blame me for. Just because you admit not knowing what is behind the magnetic pole reversal, is no need to get jealous of what a real theory can do!
But it doe not fit into your list of unfounded guesses and conclusions, I'm sorry but I can't bring myself to call your load of rubish a theory. Only one observation fits your load of rubish, but it fits only if you ignore all other evidence, evidence you have been made aware of and willfully ignore, making your claim dishonest.
They are paterns in the rock created when the rocks set from a liquid state into a solid and the atoms which make up the molecules which makes up the rock were set in alignment towards the magnetic north pole at the time.
True, that is how magnetic field imprinting is now done in rocks, would anyone dispute that?? (would you expect the same pattern in rocks in creation week, when the waters and land masses were separated?? Or in a continental split, if the state of the day was creation state???)
Different layers layed down at different times point towards opposing poles and the frequency of that change is about 300,000 years.
Well, can you give us one example here? Which layer, or layers, where?
That number isnt just randomly pulled out of the air but it comes from using various dating methods to date the rock layers in question.
A lot worse than random, because that uses a myth to filter the evidence, so the results are bound to agree with the myth. Ridiculous.
I don't mean any one particular polarity swich, but you can take a look at the Mid Atlantic ridge and see several.
I can, yes, so? Is there some reason we should not expect such a pattern in the time when a universe state change, and continental separation both were at play? Of course we would expect that sort of thing.
You might want to brush up on your English language because scientists saying they do dot know WHY it is happening does not mean that it is NOT happening, see the difference?
But I never suggested any such thing, why bring it up?? I simply point out they know nearly squat about it, and admit it!
You know, I don't think there is any great problem with average scientists in the creation 'debate'. Most likely have their little field they play around in quietly, and don't generally stick their PO nose into things that are too high for them! The sort that really pick up the torch for old age, anti god so called sciences are more like little busybodies, who don't really know much about what they are trying to talk about.
Just a misuse of man's limited knowledge, to blaspheme God. Sad.
The same state past "myth" will drop as soon as evidence is provided that the past was somehow in a different state.
Aha! So you admit there is such a myth!!! great, that is a start.
So far you have not done that in any of the threads you claim this nonsense.
No evidence that there was the mythical state, as you so eloquently describe it, first exists, so no one needs to disprove strawmen, and beat at the air for nothing!
But it doe not fit into your list of unfounded guesses and conclusions, I'm sorry but I can't bring myself to call your load of rubish a theory.
You know, I don't like that term either, it is so small. The bible, and heavenly state, and the future and past, are so much better than that. I was just trying to be humble in talking about it, so as not to hurt your feelings!
Only one observation fits your load of rubish, but it fits only if you ignore all other evidence, evidence you have been made aware of and willfully ignore, making your claim dishonest.
Well, I am aware there is a magnetic field pattern that the rocks recorded, and that the ship's logs, as well as observed science says that the field is decreasing! Now, in an attempt to explain why, you look beyond recorded observations of man, and just to the rock pattern. Fine, I can do that as well. And the result is honestly, that you, and your admitted myth are not the ones that have a monopoly on what really went on in the past! In fact, you are so hog tied to your myth, it seems reason, and evidence hardly enter into it any more. Sad.
The pattern depends on the state of the universe, and the laws in place at the time, in case you somehow missed that! Things you know not of by virtue just of your myth! You are busted.
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
If its been in steady decline since the beginning at the rate of which you described, life might not be possible.
Did I say that it was "steady" in the former state???? No. In fact I said that the changes are easily explained with that state.
I even raised the possibility that earth was designed as a giant spaceship, that could cruise around the universes as desired. One would think that would involve some activity in things like the shield!
But, even if it that is a bit much, changes in the field in the universe change of states, is expected. Also, possibly different ways of operating, and powering the shield, than man theorizes from this PO perspective, are almost certain.
Remember, we seem to be like a car, with the fan belt broken, and now alternator, losing power, as far as our magnetic shield goes.
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
There is no need to prove that the magnetic field is decreasing. I just pointed it out. It is already proven, and observed. My point is that if the universe changed, and the former state had a strong, self maintaining magnetic field, it is natural to assume that it should decrease once left in this state!! That is what we see happening.
I mean, it even seems that the earth may be cooling in places below the surface.
"Not only have caldera eruptions become less frequent over time, the erupting magma has also become cooler, decreasing from more than 1830 degrees Fahrenheit about 16 million years ago to as little as 1470 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 7.5 million years.
Yellowstone hotspot caldera eruptions are believed to stem from molten basalt rising from depth, and then melting and mixing with the overlying granitic crust, which in turn erupts. Nash believes the decrease in magma temperatures over time means that less high-temperature basalt is incorporated in the melting process."
Linear Mode
