- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,070
- 16,820
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you continue maintain that modern geology was created solely by atheists I will attempt to reply in a more civilized way.
I can't help it if you cannot understand the history of evolutionary thinking or just think ToE popped up out of nowhere. Furthermore, please enlighten us as to how geology relates. So far, we got geology was used by a few Christians to argue for an old earth, but how old or how that happened who knows? Many Christians thought it was 6,000 years based on the Bible.
Heh. Why should I be nice to someone who calls me names out of the blue and makes disgusting comments because they're so limited?
The earth's magnetic field has strengthened and weakened and even reversed a number of times in the past. The record of these changes is recorded in the rocks in quite a number of locations on our planet. Currently we are well into a period of a weakening magnetic field and there is speculation that we may be entering a time of reversal. If so, we may be in for a period in which cosmic and solar radiation levels might be quite high. This could lead to a number of both negative and positive effects most of which are quite beyond our control. Our world and life on it continues to evolve.
According to Martin Gorst, in Aeons: The Search for the Beginning of Time (pages 159-160), in 1860 John Phillips, professor of geology at Oxford University and a Christian, used measurements of the amount of sediment transported by the River Ganges to calculate that the total thickness of the sedimentary strata (then thought to be 13¾ miles or 22 km) could have been deposited in 96 million years.
Two years later, in 1862 (ibid., pp. 168-169), Lord Kelvin, who was also a Christian, calculated that the Earth would have cooled to its present state from a molten sphere in 98 million years, with a possible range between 20 million and 400 million years. Kelvin's calculations were regarded as authoritative until the discovery of radioactivity in the 1890s provided a previously unknown source of terrestrial heat, and until radiometric dating of rocks by Bertram Boltwood and Arthur Holmes between 1900 and 1920 started yielding ages of hundreds and even thousands of millions of years.
Did you check what any other geologists say about Humphrey's article or do you accept what he says at face value?
PaleoMag
"Humphreys completely fabricated the notion of rapid reversals of the field (Since archeomagnetic data show no reversals)! Furthermore, the strength of the dipole field does fluctuate and change through time. Currently, it is decreasing, but the field is still much higher than it has been in the past. Just because an explanation is complex, it does not mean it is wrong. In fact, the complex theories for the Earth’s magnetic field are based on real data. Humphreys ‘theory’ is based on a misrepresentation of archeomagnetic data (e.g. drawing reversals and zero lines on a curve that shows neither)……"
Even I can tell with a quick glance what data Humphreys has thrown out here to tell his story....
Actual history of the Earth's magnetic field...
Humphrey's history of the Earth's magnetic field...
Not that it really matters, to be frank, your source is garbage. ICR do not really "do" science, they start of with a apriori beliefs and only bother with data that they feel they can force fit into those beliefs, ignoring everything else.
Mind you, again, none of that really matters, YECism is akin to flat-earthism in that it's patently ridiculous and doesn't really warrant any decent efforts to debunk.
Again, I'm not a mind reader so do not know where these old earth creationists, if they are old earth creationists, are coming from nor where they draw the line between evolution and creation.
Sounds like you've been watching too many sci fi movies. Drilling into the core?
The Deepest oil well on earth is some 40,000 feet deep. The crust of the earth is closer to 100,000 feet. Beyond that, our instruments would be melted by extreme pressures and heat of the lower crust and upper mantle, the mantle being some 9-10 million feet thick.
At best, with advanced technology we might be able to get through the majority of the crust, but beyond that it is highly unlikely that we would ever get anywhere close to the core.
The plate tectonics causing the dynamo is something to consider
Personally, I've never seen the reversal and do not know anybody whose compass reversed. My magnetic compasses always pointed N.
Let's discuss. Are you saying that archeomagnetic data shows that the polarity of the earth never reversed? How do you explain the reversed polarity in fossils then?
You keep using that phrase inappropriately. Old Earth Creationism is a particular position on the Creationism and Evolution spectrum. Basically it's folks who accept deep time, but apply literalism to Genesis. One of the more famous is Hugh Ross. There tend to be a lot fewer OECs than YECs or TEs/PCs.
Plate tectonics do not cause the dynamo. Currents in the liquid metal of the outer core do.
The magnetic field has both increased and decreased in the past. Currently it is in a decreasing phase.
No, your magnetic compasses always pointed to the north magnetic pole, which is not at the north pole, and which is moving at about 1 kilometre per week.
No, I’m not suggesting that it has never reversed, maybe I didn’t express myself clearly.
Humphreys was incorrect in suggesting that there have been many rapid reversals in the last 6000 years, as I understand it there hasn’t been one for hundreds of thousands of years.
Humphreys can’t look at the data objectively though. He starts with the cast iron conclusion that the Earth is approximately 6000 years old and attempts to fit any data to his model. Any data that doesn’t fit is ignored or rejected out of hand.
It’s right there in their mission statement. Do you really think that that is an objective approach to scientific research?
You're jumping to conclusions or just believing what others tell you.
you mean Christian Scientists? "Creation Science" and Scientists who claim they practice it are an oxymoron.So ignorant. Creation scientists were some of the greatest scientists in the history of science.
Nope! There wasn't an "Adam and Eve", we weren't created in 6 days, Earth is in the order of 4.6 billion years old, not 6,000 to 10,000 years old, Leprosy isn't cured with the blood of birds and incantations, domesticated livestock don't give birth to striped offspring if made to look at stripes while they mate, etc.Herodotus was the first using reasoning to estimate the age of the Earth. As for the Archbishop, he used the Bible and science does back up the Bible even though it's not a science book.
and they were wrong as shown by the evidence they found themselves let alone everything we've collectively discovered since - we just discussed how the earth is way, Way, WAY Older than 6,000 to 10,000 years old...I can't help it if you cannot understand the history of evolutionary thinking or just think ToE popped up out of nowhere. Furthermore, please enlighten us as to how geology relates. So far, we got geology was used by a few Christians to argue for an old earth, but how old or how that happened who knows? Many Christians thought it was 6,000 years based on the Bible.
. Jahovahs witnesses are old earth creationistsYou keep using that phrase inappropriately. Old Earth Creationism is a particular position on the Creationism and Evolution spectrum. Basically it's folks who accept deep time, but apply literalism to Genesis. One of the more famous is Hugh Ross. There tend to be a lot fewer OECs than YECs or TEs/PCs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?