Earth's Magnetic Field Is Weakening And Not A Dynamo.

[jamesbond007]

I won't repeat the magnetic pole reversal as everyone can try and explain it to themselves. I presented the pole reversal and the properties of magnetic force affecting each other due to proximity in the vid in post #87. The reversal due to magnetic force affecting each other. Proximity affects the magnetite in igneous material first and that's why it lines up as NSNS or NSSN pattern. One can buy the magnetite material and experiment for themselves. OTOH, secular scientists think it's earth's field reversal causing it with little explanation how it works except some hypothesis that it happens over a thousand years and that it has happened many times in the past. Their explanations seemed to due to heat convection in the mantle and radioactive decay.

Here is what I've discovered and how I think earth's magnetic field works. JMO. It's due to tidal forces which affect the core material and this movement causes the magnetic field. It also causes the heat convection in the mantle. The heat is not due to radioactive decal as hypothesized by most secular scientists. Gravity is what affects the tidal forces. The earth's rotation plays a part. I'm not sure how earth keeps rotating.

The Bible explains gravity as Jesus and Jesus encapsulates gravity/universe like a vessel encapsulates water. Here is where I get contradictions from secular science on the topic of gravity. They state that in terms of relative strength that gravity is the weakest force as the pull of the earth can be defeated by the magnets lifting iron material. Yet, they've also stated that the mass of the black holes exert tremendous force such that light cannot escape. Gravity does seem to be a mysterious force as nothing can escape it in the universe. When factoring in distance and mass, it becomes a most powerful force influencing everything in the universe.

 

[jamesbond007]

Secular science changes because they get better facts and it lets scientists have a better, more detailed idea of what’s going on. Creation “science “ doesn’t change because they just ignore facts that they don’t like. Creation “science” is the definition of confirmation bias

This is just ignorant. How do you know creation science when you do not consider its theories? Do you even read the Bible? Atheist science (secular) as in evolutionary thinking is built upon circular reasoning.

History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia

 

[Brightmoon]

I’ve got a biology degree I’ve read (eye-rolled and laughed at) creationist pseudoscience for at least 20 years. Flat wrong , dead wrong and /or how-could-they-be-so-stupid is usually my reaction. they’re using Orwellian newspeak mixed with science-y sounding terminology to fool science illiterates into thinking creation “scientists” have discovered something profound that real scientists have missed about natural phenomena . The reaction of most mainstream scientists is , oh-no-not-this-idiot-again!

I take it you didn’t actually read that Wikipedia article

 

[Brightmoon]

Well mr shaken not stirred, please explain this . As this zebra stripe magnetic pattern is even on both sides of the mid Atlantic ridge .

 

[PsychoSarah]

Mary Schweitzer's follow up findings about iron particles to help preserve soft tissue that is "millions of years old" are hypothesis. We cannot even test something like that for thousands of years.

-_- a hypothesis is, by definition, testable. And this one can be tested over the course of several years by comparing the rate of decomposition of the control tissue with the experimental tissue.

It just goes with the other stuff that ToE science. OEC is something that I'm not too familiar with. They can be confused with theistic evolutionists.

-_- I'm performing an evolution experiment right now. It is entirely possible to test because evolution isn't an inherently slow process; combining factors such as making the test organism one which reproduces rapidly, is highly prone to mutation, and enacting strong selection pressures can make significant change occur relatively rapidly.

Brightmoon explained it, but he left out that one can use radiocarbon or C-14 dating test only on organic matter and not fossils or rocks. Furthermore, it has a limitation of 50,000 years because the radioactive carbon would have been used up.

-_- by definition, in order to qualify as a fossil, it must be a minimum of 10,000 years old. Thus, there are most certainly fossils that can be carbon dated accurately. You didn't even look up the youngest a fossil can be to count as one.

He neglected to mention that and claimed contamination. Just where is this contamination coming from? It's coming from everywhere that C-14 isn't supposed to be such as dinosaur fossils and in diamonds.

The reason why they can't be carbon dated is, among other things, the fact that diamonds are not and never were alive. Living organisms maintain a relatively consistent ratio of radioactive carbon and nonradioactive carbon within them until the moment that they die, but diamonds do not. Radioactive carbon 14 is in the air itself, and once the amount in an item becomes low enough, all the machines will actually measure is the carbon in the air. Items are not dated in a vacuum, as far as I am aware, and my efforts in looking it up didn't show anything suggesting that things were dated in a vacuum.

Dinosaur fossils can easily become contaminated during the process of digging them up or if they become partly exposed thanks to erosion. Basically, once it is pulled out of the ground, chances of contamination skyrocket.

ETA: I know you won't accept this, but creation scientists have to be less than forthright in their views or they will lose their jobs and grants.

Nope, if the evidence they found was legitimate, they don't have to lose anything. I've only ever seen such people lose their jobs under these three and similar circumstances:
1. They are hired to teach a particular subject (biology) and they refuse to teach about evolution and/or teach creationism. They aren't doing what they were hired for in these cases.
2. They present fraudulent data or unreasonable conclusions based upon their data. Examples of this would include outright assuming that since the soft tissue was preserved that the measured age of the fossil must be wrong and that no other conclusions are plausible, despite the fact that there are other viable possibilities.
3. They interfere in the peer review process, either as a reviewer or a person wanting to get a paper published.

These things will get any scientist in trouble if they are caught, though. The vast majority of such cases I can find are entirely unrelated to creationism.

Remember that guy that discovered the Triceratops fossil I mentioned earlier? He openly discussed that he believed it was evidence of a young earth to students and other staff members off hours while working as a professor, was fired for it, sued the university, and WON the case because he wasn't teaching it in class and it was his right to express his opinion off hours to people willing to listen to it. He's still a professor, last I checked. Your assertion that being an open creationist is not allowed is WRONG and the right to be openly a creationist is defended by law.

I've never heard of anyone losing grants on the basis of being a creationist alone.

I think this applied to Mary Schweitzer, too. Here is what happened to a CSUN scientist. If I was a scientist in any of biology, zoology, paleontology and geology, not a computer scientist, then I wouldn't be posting here. That way the opinions would be my own and not reflective of my company or university. Also, I would have to go under a pseudonym.

Lawsuit: CSUN Scientist Fired After Soft Tissue Found On Dinosaur Fossil

Oh hey, it's the guy that WON the lawsuit. This particular article doesn't fully describe it accurately, though, making it sound like he absolutely found evidence that the fossils are young and leaving out that he expressed this view verbally, not through any published paper or paper he attempted to publish. It's straight up a case of religious intolerance and the guy won, but his winning doesn't exactly fit with your claim that creation scientists aren't allowed to openly express their views.

 

[jamesbond007]

View attachment 228713

Well mr shaken not stirred, please explain this . As this zebra stripe magnetic pattern is even on both sides of the mid Atlantic ridge .

You haven't been paying attention. Typical of people who can't think. Nor how experiments show real science. It's exactly what I've been talking about. We see the NSSN pattern in your example. Even the break line can be explained. In the NSSN (or even the NSNS pattern), the weak points will break along the NS-SN (and NS-NS) lines. This is because the magnetic attaction is weaker there. The NS and SN (or NS) attraction cancel each other out and will be very strong.

Futhermore, you haven't shown any magnetic reversal of the entire earth nor how long time is related to it. That's all atheist scientists' conjecture.

 

[jamesbond007]

-_- a hypothesis is, by definition, testable. And this one can be tested over the course of several years by comparing the rate of decomposition of the control tissue with the experimental tissue

How do you test one over a million years? Or even a thousand years? Hundred years? I think Mary S. gave us one of two years.

-_- I'm performing an evolution experiment right now. It is entirely possible to test because evolution isn't an inherently slow process; combining factors such as making the test organism one which reproduces rapidly, is highly prone to mutation, and enacting strong selection pressures can make significant change occur relatively rapidly

Aren't you looking at something to validate your beliefs? Instead, we see that urban environment changes animals quite rapidly. We even see new species in months on Galapagos Islands.

-_- by definition, in order to qualify as a fossil, it must be a minimum of 10,000 years old. Thus, there are most certainly fossils that can be carbon dated accurately. You didn't even look up the youngest a fossil can be to count as one.

Creation scientists won't be allowed to input any fossil evidence. They aren't allowed any input at all!

The reason why they can't be carbon dated is, among other things, the fact that diamonds are not and never were alive. Living organisms maintain a relatively consistent ratio of radioactive carbon and nonradioactive carbon within them until the moment that they die, but diamonds do not. Radioactive carbon 14 is in the air itself, and once the amount in an item becomes low enough, all the machines will actually measure is the carbon in the air. Items are not dated in a vacuum, as far as I am aware, and my efforts in looking it up didn't show anything suggesting that things were dated in a vacuum

Dinosaur fossils can easily become contaminated during the process of digging them up or if they become partly exposed thanks to erosion. Basically, once it is pulled out of the ground, chances of contamination skyrocket.

They found C-14 in diamonds and dinosaur fossils. How does one explain that?

Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds

Nope, if the evidence they found was legitimate, they don't have to lose anything. I've only ever seen such people lose their jobs under these three and similar circumstances:
1. They are hired to teach a particular subject (biology) and they refuse to teach about evolution and/or teach creationism. They aren't doing what they were hired for in these cases.
2. They present fraudulent data or unreasonable conclusions based upon their data. Examples of this would include outright assuming that since the soft tissue was preserved that the measured age of the fossil must be wrong and that no other conclusions are plausible, despite the fact that there are other viable possibilities.
3. They interfere in the peer review process, either as a reviewer or a person wanting to get a paper published.

These things will get any scientist in trouble if they are caught, though. The vast majority of such cases I can find are entirely unrelated to creationism.

Any evidence of your story in 1, 2 or 3? I looked but did not find.

Creation science is taught only in private Christian schools. It can be taught as an alternative theory in public schools, but not with ID.

The rest is bias on your part.

Remember that guy that discovered the Triceratops fossil I mentioned earlier? He openly discussed that he believed it was evidence of a young earth to students and other staff members off hours while working as a professor, was fired for it, sued the university, and WON the case because he wasn't teaching it in class and it was his right to express his opinion off hours to people willing to listen to it. He's still a professor, last I checked. Your assertion that being an open creationist is not allowed is WRONG and the right to be openly a creationist is defended by law.

It turns out that he's the same professor from CSUN, Mark Armitrage, that I mentioned. Good for him for winning! However, Armitrage was fired because he didn't get his job back.

"California State University at Northridge has settled a lawsuit brought by a former employee who said he was fired for sharing news of an archaeological discovery that supported his young-Earth creationist beliefs. The university says it settled for $399,500 to avoid a protracted legal battle, but some scientists say the outcome has implications for how scientists critique creationist colleagues going forward."

...

"Armitage said he complained verbally of religious discrimination to two administrators, who told him to forget about it and never investigated.

Two weeks after his article was published, and after Armitage allegedly was excluded from a secret meeting of a microscopy committee on which he served, Northridge fired Armitage. In the interim, a colleague told him he was the subject of a “witch hunt,” and suggested that he resign, according to the complaint.

The university argued that it acted due to budgetary adjustments and a declining need for Armitage’s services; he was a part-time, temporary employee, it said. But Armitage charged religious discrimination and wrongful termination in his 2014 lawsuit. His view is that faculty scientists didn’t want to be associated with a published creationist."

https://www.insidehighered.com/news...lab-manager-who-said-he-was-fired-creationist

I've never heard of anyone losing grants on the basis of being a creationist alone.

This one's difficult to prove if one doesn't get a grant. Will I get a grant to show that dinosaur fossils are under 6K years old?

Oh hey, it's the guy that WON the lawsuit. This particular article doesn't fully describe it accurately, though, making it sound like he absolutely found evidence that the fossils are young and leaving out that he expressed this view verbally, not through any published paper or paper he attempted to publish. It's straight up a case of religious intolerance and the guy won, but his winning doesn't exactly fit with your claim that creation scientists aren't allowed to openly express their views.

Mark Armitrage's case is a perfect example of it. It's good that he got his money, but he has to find a new job. I should be able to express my creation views that dinosaurs fossils are still young as evidence and that radiocarbon is still found in them not as contamination. That's science. Science has always been a battle of opposing views. Today's science eliminates creation science right off the bat. It isn't tolerated.

 

[jamesbond007]

I’ve got a biology degree I’ve read (eye-rolled and laughed at) creationist pseudoscience for at least 20 years. Flat wrong , dead wrong and /or how-could-they-be-so-stupid is usually my reaction. they’re using Orwellian newspeak mixed with science-y sounding terminology to fool science illiterates into thinking creation “scientists” have discovered something profound that real scientists have missed about natural phenomena . The reaction of most mainstream scientists is , oh-no-not-this-idiot-again!

I take it you didn’t actually read that Wikipedia article

Part of the reason for posting the link is some of my opposition here do not believe in evolutionary thinking. In your case it fits. Your brain isn't thinking from your comments. It's not mainstream scientists but what I call atheist scientists.

In 2017, we found that science backs up the Bible once again. The chicken came before the egg as Genesis and God said. Atheist scientists were saying the egg came first and were shown to be wrong again. Evidence for, "So much for your biology." I just LMAO. And just take your punishment like a person with a biology degree with some bollocks.

 

[Ophiolite]

Part of the reason for posting the link is some of my opposition here do not believe in evolutionary thinking. In your case it fits. Your brain isn't thinking from your comments. It's not mainstream scientists but what I call atheist scientists.

In 2017, we found that science backs up the Bible once again. The chicken came before the egg as Genesis and God said. Atheist scientists were saying the egg came first and were shown to be wrong again. Evidence for, "So much for your biology." I just LMAO. And just take your punishment like a person with a biology degree with some bollocks.

I'm addressing the content: drivel.

 

[Job 33:6]

I’ve got a biology degree I’ve read (eye-rolled and laughed at) creationist pseudoscience for at least 20 years. Flat wrong , dead wrong and /or how-could-they-be-so-stupid is usually my reaction. they’re using Orwellian newspeak mixed with science-y sounding terminology to fool science illiterates into thinking creation “scientists” have discovered something profound that real scientists have missed about natural phenomena . The reaction of most mainstream scientists is , oh-no-not-this-idiot-again!

I take it you didn’t actually read that Wikipedia article

I support the above. Replace "biologist" with "geologist" and you would be taking words out of my mouth.

 

[Job 33:6]

If dinosaurs really lived 3000 years ago, then every single fossil we find, should have blood cells in it. It shouldn't be some 1 in a billion find, where the fossil undergoes all this chemical treatment and hydration.

@jamesbond007

 

[Brightmoon]

I’m jealous, I was fascinated with geology as a kid ! Aside from that glittery schist and the occasional hard purple sandstone they make brownstone buildings out of , I rarely saw any rocks in NYC . I actually ended up giving mini geology lessons because a lot of the decorative stone facades on the skyscrapers have fossils in them . People will look at you strange when you’re on your knees looking at a fossil coral even in NY

 

[jamesbond007]

If dinosaurs really lived 3000 years ago, then every single fossil we find, should have blood cells in it. It shouldn't be some 1 in a billion find, where the fossil undergoes all this chemical treatment and hydration.

I'm not going to go here because it's off-topic. There is certainly evidence such as photos and anecdotes in books and red blood cells.

High magnification of dinosaur vessels shows branching pattern (arrows) and round, red microstructures in the vessels. Source: Schweitzer, et al., “Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex”, Science, 307 (2005) 1952. Reprinted with permission.

“Soft Tissue” in Dinosaur Bones: What Does the Evidence Really Say?

 

[jamesbond007]

@KomatiteBF

I'm not a hard science person, but a computer science one. What about the magnetic field? Isn't that up your field? Could it be due to tidal forces instead of radioactive decay? Let's hear your thinking on how the magnetic field is generated and how the field "reverses" itself. I presented experimental with an explanation of how it works. Also, I presented how Bernard Brunhes came to his conclusion and presented a vid on seafloor spread. All of it happens in the ingneous layer.

 

[Ophiolite]

What about the magnetic field? <snip>Could it be due to tidal forces instead of radioactive decay?

It is not due to radioactive decay.
It could not be due to tidal forces.

The only role radioactive decay has in generating the magnetic field is in contributing to the internal heat of the planet. This heat presently maintains the outer core in a molten state and it is there a self-exciting dynamo generates the magnetic field. The internal heat of the planet has mutliple sources. These are the main ones:
1. Accretion - kinetic energy of the material forming the planet is converted to thermal energy on impact. (The moon forming impact was the most extreme example of this.)
2. The Iron Catastrophe - spearation of iron and siderophile elements from the early molten, or partially molten Earth and their movement to form the core, converted gravitational energy to thermal energy.
3. Short lived radioactive elements, principally 26AL generated a substantial amount of heat.

These three inputs occured in the early stages of planet formation, up to the Late Heavy Bombardment, most of them in the first 100 million years. This was followed by:
4. Ongoing decay of potassium, thorium and uranium

Tidal forces, through the flexing of the solid planet, contribute practically nothing to its temperature. The Earth is not Io.

As long ago as 1948 Bullard demonstrated that tidal forces were not implicated.

The earth's rotation plays a part. I'm not sure how earth keeps rotating.

It's called inertia! Learn some physics.