Ancient Pottery & the Earth's Magnetic Field. *** YEC DECAY ARGUMENT DEBUNKED ***

[Chi_Cygni]

To all the YEC's who love the decay argument.

See how the field was weaker in the past then increased and is now decreasing.

If it has been continuously decaying - WHY DID IT STRENGTHEN BEFORE?

Also the decay as used by YEC's is supposed to be exponential based upon an old (i.e. discarded) model of the core. WHERE IN THE ABOVE PLOT DOES AN EXPONENTIAL 6000 year TIMESCALE DECAY SHOW ITSELF?

And for the umpteenth time, the dipole field is not the only component of the Earth's field so it doesn't account for the whole energy in the field anyway.

But the above plot is damning evidence against the simple decay models of the YEC "scientists".

 

[Ark Guy]

One of the many problems with evos such as Chi_Cygni is that they post such absurb STRAWMAN arguments.

Below is a chart that the YEC's have developed from magnetic field measurments which do show oscillation in the magnetic field.

Contraty to what Chi_Cygni wants you to believe. Chi_Cygni want you to believe that the YECs claim that the magnetic field has only decreased. Hence his STRAWMAN argument.

The chart even presents simple explanations for the decay and oscillations.

So for Chi_Cygni, do your homework prior to claiming that you know it all.
The argument has not been debunked.

Please consider yourself corrected. Thank you and have a nice day.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

But that graph you have shown is not based on real data.

Compare the two.

The fluctuations in your graph are not visible in the paleomagnetic data.

Also it has not been a steady decay in the last 2000 years. Again not in your fake graph.

In fact the 'graph' you show is not a real graph. It is a known fake of some data taken on aboriginal fireplaces. And the scale altered and reflected in the y axis. For instance the original source for that did not have the zero crossings.

IT IS A FRAUD - PURE AND SIMPLE. ---- A DISGRACE!!!!!!!!!!

PS

Ark Guy, what is your background in science that allows you to aver strong opinions on data I frankly don't think you understand.

 

[Ark Guy]

But that graph you have shown is not based on real data.

sigh.



NEXT EVO PLEASE

 

[Ark Guy]

Some more info for those interested:

"Archaeomagnetism" is the study of the magnetization of bricks, pottery, campfire stones, and other man-related objects studied by archaeologists. Iron oxides in those objects retain a record of the strength and direction of the earth's magnetic field at the time they last cooled to normal temperatures. Archaeomagnetic data taken worldwide show that the intensity of the earth's magnetic field was about 40% greater in 1000 A.D. than it is today, and that it has declined steadily since then.[7]



Such a rapid decay could not have been going on continuously for millions of years, because the field would have to have been impossibly strong in the past in order for it to still exist today. Creationists of the 1970s extrapolated today's decay back into the past, showing that the field could not be more than about 10,000 years old, assuming a constant decay of intensity.

click here for the full article

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Ark Guy,


Why do you LIE.

I'm not talking about disagreeing about facts but YOU LIE.

 

[Ark Guy]

Well, I thought I'd give this character another chance, but as you see Chi_Cygni is still showing un-Christ like characteristics.

later Chi...back to the ignore seting for you.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Well, I thought I'd give this character another chance, but as you see Chi_Cygni is still showing un-Christ like characteristics.

later Chi...back to the ignore seting for you.

Don't play the victim.

You repeatedly are bearing false witness, either out of ignorance or of your own volition.


You know full well that your presentation above IS NOT REAL DATA. PERIOD.

You might not like it being called out - BUT YOU LIE.

 

[notto]

The chart even presents simple explanations for the decay and oscillations.

So for Chi_Cygni, do your homework prior to claiming that you know it all.
The argument has not been debunked.

The data used to construct this graph never shows any reversals, only fluctuation. Humphreys moved the zero line down from where the original chart he copied from to created these reversals. This has been well known for some time.

Can you show us any data that shows reversals in the past few thousand years? There is not any data that supports a claim of reversals in the recent past. None of the references (except humphreys) in the ICR article shows or discussed any reversals. The data does not support their conclusions.

 

[Ark Guy]

Either prove that claim...or retract. It's that simple notto.

Got it?

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Ark Guy (though I am sure I am back on ignore) here check this out!!!!!!!!

Archaeomagnetic and radiocarbon studies of Aboriginal fireplaces

Barbetti, M (1973)

Canberra, Australian National University, 1973 164p+ appendices; photos; PhD thesis

A pilot study of some Aboriginal fireplaces demonstrated the suitability of their baked clay ovenstones for Thellier palaeointensity studies, and allowed estimates of their ages to be made by comparing the measured ancient field intensities with the known prehistoric fluctuation of the Earth's magnetic field. Measurements on oriented clay-sand ovenstones from a series of ovens exposed on the open plains revealed that the ovenstones had not been displaced since the time of last cooling, and provided a preliminary archaeo-secular variation curve for southeastern Australia. A comparison of these results with those from other parts of the world suggests that the non-dipole contribution to the field in southeastern Australia was small during the period 1500 to 500 years BP. Measurements were also made on a series of fireplaces exposed by modern erosion of ancient sediments on the Lake Mungo Lunette. The fireplaces recorded a geomagnetic excursion occurring between 31,000 and 25,000 years BP. During two excursion loops, the geomagnetic field rotated more than 90deg away from the axial dipole configuration. One excursion may be an aborted reversal of the field. The other is thought to be a rare and perhaps new type of dynamo behavior. The similarity of virtual geomagnetic pole positions to other excursions or polarity transitions during the last 15 million years suggests that some common mechanism is controlling or restraining the processes occurring in the Earth's core. (Au, NS)

Dating techniques; Radiocarbon dating; Aboriginal campsites; Geological sites; Environmental change

Willandra Lakes NSW; Keilor Vic; Victoria, Lake NSW; Yantara, Lake NSW


This is the reference where the plot was stolen from, reversed and the zero point shifted.

It's a fraud - and for you to pretend otherwise when I am sure you know this is

BEARING FALSE WITNESS.

 

[notto]

Either prove that claim...or retract. It's that simple notto.

Got it?

The footnote immediately above the chart references:
[7] Merrill, R. T. and M. W. McElhinney. The Earth's Magnetic Field (London: Academic Press, 1983) 101-106.

The chart, in the original study is as follows:

Notice, there is NO CROSSING OF THE AXIS in this dipole chart.

http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/magfield.htm

Got it?

Now, just so you don't go off an ignore my 'evolutionist' source, Why don't you check out this additional article from ICR, where it can be shown plain as day that humpreys simply moved the 0 axis to support his assertions.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-188.htm

Notice Humpreys graph on the left, as compared to the one he took his data from on the right. What do we notice? The one on the right does not show any reversals and never dips below 0.

Got it?

 

[Ark Guy]

notto, Barbetti estimated the field strength in creating his graph. Soooooooo, where is zero?

 

[Ark Guy]

Some more great stuff from your link notto..

3) Rapid reversals during the flood. In 1986, I suggested that there was a powerful release of energy in the earth's core at the beginning of the Genesis flood, and that the resulting strong movements in the core field produced rapid reversals of the earth's magnetic field, about one per week, during the year that the flood was laying down the fossil layers at the earth's surface. General physical laws allow rapid reversals, a likely physical mechanism exists to cause the reversals, and observations of the sun's magnetic field demonstrate reversal cycles in nature today. This rapid-reversal model not only explains the general features of the paleomagnetic data, but also some specific features which have puzzled evolutionists.15

 

[notto]

notto, Barbetti estimated the field strength in creating his graph. Soooooooo, where is zero?

Considering that all of the dipole measurements were positive, I would guess that it would be under all those positive numbers.

Where is 0 in Humphreys graph? Why does he suggest that there have been reversals in the past few thousand years. There is no data to support it. You are the one that posted an article about magnetic field fluctuations that discussed the last reversal over 250,000 years ago. Where is the data that shows any reversals (not just fluctuations) in the past few thousand years? It certainly is NOT in any of Humpreys references.

Humpreys simply moved the axis to suggest that some of the dipole measurements would be negative (reversal). This is not the case.

 

[notto]

Some more great stuff from your link notto..

3) Rapid reversals during the flood. In 1986, I suggested that there was a powerful release of energy in the earth's core at the beginning of the Genesis flood, and that the resulting strong movements in the core field produced rapid reversals of the earth's magnetic field, about one per week, during the year that the flood was laying down the fossil layers at the earth's surface. General physical laws allow rapid reversals, a likely physical mechanism exists to cause the reversals, and observations of the sun's magnetic field demonstrate reversal cycles in nature today. This rapid-reversal model not only explains the general features of the paleomagnetic data, but also some specific features which have puzzled evolutionists.15

Where is the data that shows any reversals in the timeframe he is discussing? It is not in the graph he 'estimated' his graph from. He took other peoples field work and measurements and distorted them. This is terrible science. Reversals are plain to see in the geologic record, but they have not happened in the past few thousand years.

 

[Ark Guy]

interesting response by Humphreys to certain anti-creationists whose “scholarship”
amounted to relying on errors to “discredit” his work....

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_01.asp

The distortion is in the minds of your evo buddies notto.

 

[notto]

interesting response by Humphreys to certain anti-creationists whose “scholarship”
amounted to relying on errors to “discredit” his work....

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_01.asp

The distortion is in the minds of your evo buddies notto.

So he openly admits that he adjusted the data to fit his conclusion. Thanks for the post. Now, why does he trust the data for reversals in the past but not the timeframe? Humpreys accepts only the science that fits his conclusions and throws the rest out. Again, this is terrible science.

There is no evidence of reversals of the magnetic field in the past few thousand years (unless you ignore all of the science leading up to the measurements humpreys uses except the measurements themselves).

 

[Ark Guy]

Once again notto makes a claim with out backing himself up.

Tell me why I should pay attention to nottos post?

 

[notto]

Once again notto makes a claim with out backing himself up.

Tell me why I should pay attention to nottos post?

Tell me what is incorrect about this claim.

"Humpreys took other peoples field data and created a graph with an adjusted axis to fit his conclusions."

He openly admits this in all his articles. There is no published field data that is valid that shows a field reversal in the past few thousand years. If you are privy to any data that shows this, present it. Humpreys has yet to do this so I don't think you will have much luck unless you manipulate valid scientific field data to fit your assertions.