farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Dec, 2005 07:23 pm
real life, Humphreys is a Creationist, a young earth creationist who has never found it necessary to obey the laws of accuracy in print.
His printing of the IGRF data may be correct, however, I know for a factthat hes not beneath calculating "field energies" which are in paleomag data, quite meaningless. He wants you to be impressed by the dipole decay data from 100 years record (even though we have a dipole "quiet time" that overlaps his "decay of dipole", in which the present decay is a t a rate of about 1/1500% per year) (Thats where he gets his 1465+/-166. The USGS stated that, but its meaningless to his argument. Its just mirrors, no substance ) Even if it decays by half, from todays value, its still higer than past dipole field dtrengths measured from ancient lavas and metamorphic rocks.
This dipole decay is, however, really balanced by higher harmonic poles strengthening (not on an even basis but pretty close) We dont fully understand why, but some say that the "external" magnetic field accounts for this variation. (Bullard)The dipole has always accounted for only about 94% of the earths total magnetic field strength.
Humphreys distorts all this and you fall for it and think that its important, and thats maybe because you dont understand geomagnetics . Please get a copy of Merrills 1998 book"The Magnetic Field of the Earth". In there are the field equations for the various harmonics on up to a 10 pole as well as remanent magnetism, the earths total field, inclination and declanation etc etc.

The thing that mostly fries my shorts is that Humphreys, after all the"Authoritative sounding" geo crap, is merely trying to convince you that the earth is YOUNG and that all the magnetic field reversals have occured about 1000 years before Christ.(Even though weve got multi source data from isotopes, thermoluminescence, stratigraphy, fossils etc that back up the geomagnetics showing that the earth is quite old)
This Humphrey stuff is just junk, and not even science' junk. Humphries has been nailed often and heavily by some of the students that use "Talk origins" as a bully pulpit for science, and theyve done a pretty good job on him.

In 2004, Clement et al published from archeomagnetic data from hydro iron precipitates of the Pleiocene and Pleistocene from around the world, and they found that , that it takes about 7000 yrs for a polar reversal to occur (on average) This has been based upon varved sediments or ocean cores with annular deposi6tion. That set of calculations wipes Humphreys entire" faith based" story away because the reversal time for one tiny reversal is about 1000 years longer than he wants you to believe that the earth is old.

Quoting Merrill,"Deep sea cores show no evidence of appreciable decay of the earths magnetic field"Merril wasnt responding to any Creationist challenge when he wrote his book, he was laying out the discipline of archeomagnetism

Humphreys also doesnt believe at all in a "dynamo earth" even though, as a geophysicist, hes been shown scads of data that there is a decoupled outer liquid core and a harder inner core which propogates and sustains the dynamo. We know this by propogation of seismic waves. Weve never gotten S waves or L waves to penetrate the cores, only P waves.S waves dont travel well in liquid.Weve, in essence, taken a good "CAT scan" of the earth and we see its innards very well. All of Humphreys manipulations look scholarly on the surface, actually they are not worth anything. Thats why he doesnt publish and is therefore quite an unknown outside of his ICR buddies. He still works at Sandia so hes not this "multimillionaire" that gungasnake thinks he is. AND, in front of other scientists, he usually keeps fairly low key and does his work without trying to engage his colleagues in the geosciences.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Dec, 2005 08:45 pm
real life wrote:
Hi Setanta,

I've made no secret of my belief in the Bible including belief that God created the universe, the Earth, and all that is in it from my very first day in this forum. I've discussed it repeatedly.

But it has been interesting watching you act as though I had not discussed it.

I've cited several specific instances of evidence that supports creation and undermines the evolutionary hypotheses.

Since you have not been able to respond specifically to any of these, I'm wondering what good additional examples would do for you?

Again, it has been interesting also to watch you act as though you had not seen these examples. But you have seen them.

Why don't you specifically respond to the ones already cited?


This is a tour de force in dissimulation. You have neither catergorically stated that the present diversity of species on this planet is the result of a direct creation, and you have provided no evidence of any description, even circumstantial, for a creation. All you do is trot out the same bogus canards about cosmic origins, planetary astronomy and evolutionary science which have been repeatedly shown to be false.

You have provided not one iota of circumstantial evidence (your term) for a creation being directly responsible for the diversity of life forms on this planet. I have not the least doubt that you will respond with the standard ID tactic, right out of the playbook, bring up a false contention of a fault of scientific observation or evidence.

Even were you to demonstrate that science is not able to reasonably explain an aspect of, to use one of your more hilarious dodges, celestial mechanics--that doesn't mean that you get to assert that therefore all which surrounds us in the universe is the product of a creation.

You've never produced a shred of evidence for your goofy contention.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Dec, 2005 09:01 pm
real life asserts
Quote:
I've cited several specific instances of evidence that supports creation and undermines the evolutionary hypotheses.

You have?? can You point these out? Was it while I was away? Evidence ?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Dec, 2005 09:02 pm
hey set, wheres yer do rag?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Dec, 2005 09:07 pm
Isn't also interesting that we are still finding fauna and flora still unnamed.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Dec, 2005 09:09 pm
Another thought: the bible as the word of god failed to recognize those planets outside the naked eye view of those that lived during the writing of the cannons.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Dec, 2005 09:09 pm
farmerman wrote:
hey set, wheres yer do rag?


When my Sweetiepie took this photo and showed it to me, i immediately said "I want that for my avatar." It was so much an abandonment of my Crypto-Muslim personna as it was an adoption of the true nature of Miss Cleo for my incognito . . .
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Dec, 2005 09:21 pm
farmerman wrote:
yawn, Im not gonna cruise back through the 10 or so pages Ive missed but why does real life, in Wolf's quote attribute that boxed statement to me??


This thread was more fun back on page 583 when RL was saying things like this...

real life wrote:
Evolutionists postulate the Earth to be 5-6 billion years old.


4.5 billion. Sheesh, at least start with something accurate.

real life wrote:
A recalculated age of even half that would probably be devastating to the evolutionary theory, since it supposedly took 3/4 of a billion years just to get from Earth's beginning to the first living organism.

So if data from the magnetic field indicates that the Earth's age is more likely measured in millions or even 1-3 billion, that would spell serious trouble for the evolutionary hypothesis, I think most would agree.


Yeh, and if the Easter Bunny hopped up and bit your leg you might get rabies, so what.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Dec, 2005 11:56 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Another thought: the bible as the word of god failed to recognize those planets outside the naked eye view of those that lived during the writing of the cannons.
As if bible era folks needed to know about Pluto, much less aim a cannon at him. Laughing

But I will admit; priests have a certain fascination with cannons and other WMDs.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 12:34 am
Those "cannons" continue to blow up in their faces. LOL
0 Replies
 
nick17
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 05:45 am
evolution makes no sense. how can rational human being "evolve" from jelly fish and newts single cell organisms. however we cam to exist (I am personally religious so i believe God created us) evolution not the answer.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 07:09 am
welcome. You are certainly entitled to embrace your own beliefs about how we got here. What many of us on the evolution side have argued was that such a worldview IS religious and shouldnt be confused with science. Scientific evidence abounds that clearly shows that both rational and irrational people have evolved.
Most Western religions actually embrace evolution within their own teachings . There are , however, a small number of sects that demand a literal interpretation of the Bible and therefore cannot handle the evidence
A number of sciences are just unable to deal with this belief in Biblical literalism since much of whats in the Bible has lots of evidence against it.

Evidence and fact, experiment and problem solution, thats what science is about, nothing more (or less). Science leaves us flat when it comes to moral groundings, promises and afterlives, it just doesnt know anything about those concepts. I submit that the evangelical view of the world cannot understand the concept of common ancestry (even though the Bible teaches nothing against it)

When I think about how limited science is in its "promises" I dont think about an afterlife, I believe more in a "futurelife" wherein my own biological "barcode" may reside in a descendant who, may become a great world leader or a great artist. Thats a view of a Sinclair Lewis rather than a C S Lewis.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 07:34 am
nick 17. I also submit that, since evolution makes no sense to you, how did you ever gather sense from a Biblical interpretation of life on the planet.
From the very first lines of Genesis we are led to believe that water covered everything.Yet, We have ample evidence that water was a later component of our terrasphere.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 09:03 am
nick17 wrote:
evolution makes no sense. how can rational human being "evolve" from jelly fish and newts single cell organisms. however we cam to exist (I am personally religious so i believe God created us) evolution not the answer.


So, just because you personally can't understand evolution means that it doesn't exist?

I personally cannot understand how the very existence of God makes sense. Does that mean he doesn't exist?
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 01:14 pm
Setanta wrote:
It is quite entertaining, though, to see such clear evidence that "real life" is an adherent to the principle of "revealed truth," of the bobble being a literal, historically accurate account--given the hundreds of pages in which he danced for all he was worth to avoid such a statement when the dicussion specifically focused on the issue of evolution and the cause of the diversity of life on this planet.

Got any circumstantial evidence for us yet, "real life?"


Actually real life has an eye witness account... Noah... Noah's story of this flood is also corroborated by at least three other entirely independent sources. One of them being the Gilgamesh story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory

http://novaonline.nv.cc.va.us/eli/eng251/gilgameshstudy.htm

Also historical records of Turkey and scientific discoveries of the black sea show a flood of continental proportions. Is that big enough?

Y chromosome DNA records indicate there was a bottle-neck in human evolution... Scientists say that we all evolved from only one father...

http://www.dallaway.org/dna1.htm

http://www.ramsdale.org/dna13.htm

http://www.pushhamburger.com/morenews16.htm
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 02:13 pm
farmerman wrote:
real life, Humphreys is a Creationist, a young earth creationist who has never found it necessary to obey the laws of accuracy in print.
His printing of the IGRF data may be correct, however, I know for a factthat hes not beneath calculating "field energies" which are in paleomag data, quite meaningless. He wants you to be impressed by the dipole decay data from 100 years record (even though we have a dipole "quiet time" that overlaps his "decay of dipole", in which the present decay is a t a rate of about 1/1500% per year) (Thats where he gets his 1465+/-166. The USGS stated that, but its meaningless to his argument. Its just mirrors, no substance ) Even if it decays by half, from todays value, its still higer than past dipole field dtrengths measured from ancient lavas and metamorphic rocks.
This dipole decay is, however, really balanced by higher harmonic poles strengthening (not on an even basis but pretty close) We dont fully understand why, but some say that the "external" magnetic field accounts for this variation. (Bullard)The dipole has always accounted for only about 94% of the earths total magnetic field strength.
Humphreys distorts all this and you fall for it and think that its important, and thats maybe because you dont understand geomagnetics . Please get a copy of Merrills 1998 book"The Magnetic Field of the Earth". In there are the field equations for the various harmonics on up to a 10 pole as well as remanent magnetism, the earths total field, inclination and declanation etc etc.

The thing that mostly fries my shorts is that Humphreys, after all the"Authoritative sounding" geo crap, is merely trying to convince you that the earth is YOUNG and that all the magnetic field reversals have occured about 1000 years before Christ.(Even though weve got multi source data from isotopes, thermoluminescence, stratigraphy, fossils etc that back up the geomagnetics showing that the earth is quite old)
This Humphrey stuff is just junk, and not even science' junk. Humphries has been nailed often and heavily by some of the students that use "Talk origins" as a bully pulpit for science, and theyve done a pretty good job on him.

In 2004, Clement et al published from archeomagnetic data from hydro iron precipitates of the Pleiocene and Pleistocene from around the world, and they found that , that it takes about 7000 yrs for a polar reversal to occur (on average) This has been based upon varved sediments or ocean cores with annular deposi6tion. That set of calculations wipes Humphreys entire" faith based" story away because the reversal time for one tiny reversal is about 1000 years longer than he wants you to believe that the earth is old.

Quoting Merrill,"Deep sea cores show no evidence of appreciable decay of the earths magnetic field"Merril wasnt responding to any Creationist challenge when he wrote his book, he was laying out the discipline of archeomagnetism

Humphreys also doesnt believe at all in a "dynamo earth" even though, as a geophysicist, hes been shown scads of data that there is a decoupled outer liquid core and a harder inner core which propogates and sustains the dynamo. We know this by propogation of seismic waves. Weve never gotten S waves or L waves to penetrate the cores, only P waves.S waves dont travel well in liquid.Weve, in essence, taken a good "CAT scan" of the earth and we see its innards very well. All of Humphreys manipulations look scholarly on the surface, actually they are not worth anything. Thats why he doesnt publish and is therefore quite an unknown outside of his ICR buddies. He still works at Sandia so hes not this "multimillionaire" that gungasnake thinks he is. AND, in front of other scientists, he usually keeps fairly low key and does his work without trying to engage his colleagues in the geosciences.


The figures quoted, if correct and you seem to concede that they may be, would seem to indicate not just a decay of the dipole, but an overall loss when measuring the total energy of the magnetic field, would it not?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 02:29 pm
RexRed wrote:
... Actually real life has an eye witness account... Noah... Noah's story of this flood is also corroborated by at least three other entirely independent sources. One of them being the Gilgamesh story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory

http://novaonline.nv.cc.va.us/eli/eng251/gilgameshstudy.htm
Also historical records of Turkey and scientific discoveries of the black sea show a flood of continental proportions. Is that big enough?

Nonsense. That humankind's shared memories include flood myths is a natural, logical consequence of the simple fact civilization arose in river vallies and along shorelines, which is where floods are wont to occur. When one's worldview is limited to experiential reference derived from one's own valley or bit of shoreline, one may be expected to perceive a major regional flood as a global occurrence. That such legends abound proves only that floods were common and frequent enough to play a part in mythology. Apart from that, the purported Black Sea innundation, if indeed it ocuured - a matter subject to considerable dispute and counter evidence - would have occurred a millenium or so before the date of creation as determined by biblical literalists.

Quote:
Y chromosome DNA records indicate there was a bottle-neck in human evolution... Scientists say that we all evolved from only one father...

http://www.dallaway.org/dna1.htm

http://www.ramsdale.org/dna13.htm

http://www.pushhamburger.com/morenews16.htm

More nonsense; DNA research indicates a common female ancestor for contemporary humans ... the "Mitochondrial Eve" of 200 millenia ago, which means nothing more nor less than that one female merely shared all the mytochondrial DNA common to all humans alive today. Mitochondrial DNA is passed exclusively through female, or X, chromosomes; that "Eve" had ancestors as well, all the way back to and preceeding the common mamallian ancestor. When that "Eve" was alive, she herself was the product of a long chain of ancestors, necessarilly male and female ancestors, whose genes she inherited. No stretch of logic permits consideration that this individual was other than a member of a species which has survived to this point in time. Mathematically, it is impossible for there not to have been such a critter. Now, while there existed something of a male, or Y Chromosome Adam, identified through sequencing of a small, distinct section of the Y chromosome peculiar to males, whose genes all male humans alive today share, however, that individual dates millenia more recently than does the female counterpart. That there be a "Chromosomal Adam" is as much a mathematic necessity as that there be a "Chromosomal Eve", and by nature of the distribution of genetic markers, via X chromosomes for females and males, but via only Y chromosomes for males, the set of chromosomes exclusoive to males is necessarilly smaller than that of chromosomes common to both males and fenales, and locically would, as is the case, represent a younger individual. Also in the mitochondrial record are genes common to humans and canids, for instance - by your reasoning, dogs too are descendents of Eve, as by extension would be any other mammal, including Adam.

What you prove, Rex, is that you rely, for source material in support of your proposition, on folks who haven't a clue what they're talking about.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 02:32 pm
Logged off, then found this article which also seems to indicate that these are two distinct issues.

from AP science writer http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/09/D8ED22880.html

Earth's Magnetic Pole Drifting Quickly

By ALICIA CHANG
AP Science Writer
Dec 09 7:28 PM US/Eastern

SAN FRANCISCO - Earth's north magnetic pole is drifting away from North America and toward Siberia at such a clip that Alaska might lose its spectacular Northern Lights in the next 50 years, scientists said Thursday. Despite accelerated movement over the past century, the possibility that Earth's modestly fading magnetic field will collapse is remote. But the shift could mean Alaska may no longer see the sky lights known as auroras, which might then be more visible in more southerly areas of Siberia and Europe.

The magnetic poles are part of the magnetic field generated by liquid iron in Earth's core and are different from the geographic poles, the surface points marking the axis of the planet's rotation.

Scientists have long known that magnetic poles migrate and in rare cases, swap places. Exactly why this happens is a mystery.

"This may be part of a normal oscillation and it will eventually migrate back toward Canada," Joseph Stoner, a paleomagnetist at Oregon State University, said Thursday at an American Geophysical Union meeting.

Previous studies have shown that the strength of the Earth's magnetic shield has decreased 10 percent over the past 150 years. During the same period, the north magnetic pole wandered about 685 miles out into the Arctic, according to a new analysis by Stoner.

The rate of the magnetic pole's movement has increased in the last century compared to fairly steady movement in the previous four centuries, the Oregon researchers said.

At the present rate, the north magnetic pole could swing out of northern Canada into Siberia. If that happens, Alaska could lose its Northern Lights, which occur when charged particles streaming away from the sun interact with different gases in Earth's atmosphere.

The north magnetic pole was first discovered in 1831 and when it was revisited in 1904, explorers found that the pole had moved 31 miles.

For centuries, navigators using compasses had to learn to deal with the difference between magnetic and geographic north. A compass needle points to the north magnetic pole, not the geographic North Pole. For example, a compass reading of north in Oregon is about 17 degrees east of geographic north.

In the study, Stoner examined the sediment record from several Arctic lakes. Since the sediments record the Earth's magnetic field at the time, scientists used carbon dating to track changes in the magnetic field.

They found that the north magnetic field shifted significantly in the last thousand years. It generally migrated between northern Canada and Siberia, but it sometimes moved in other directions, too.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 02:36 pm
Gosh, I am more of a flip-flop than Kerry...
sometimes I get the feeling that it doesn't even matter if we evolved or not, and other times it's the most important question... I wonder if it is even healthy to care this much...606 pages on a forum. Smile

Nick 17, a little advice, do a little unbiased research before you start posting things like that... possibly you'll be able to avoid looking like an idiot like me. Wink
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 02:36 pm
rl, all that indicates is that the earth's magnetic properties are attributes of a dynamic system.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution? How?
  3. » Page 303
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 05/18/2025 at 03:15:45