Polar reversals how do you fit them in a young earth hypothesis

We find volcanic rock that is magnetized opposite to the earth's magnetic field indicating that the magnetic field was once reversed.For the past 83 million years we have evidence of 184 reversals.We have used the compass for about 2000 years and found no record of a polar shift so that means that in the 4000 years that are still available to your model the poles shifted 184 times or once every 22 years. Reaking havoc among wildlife that use the earth's magnetism as a guide. Many periods of high radiation from the sun as the pole was shifting it could not protect us from it......How do you explain away those problems in your young earth "hypothesis"?And why did these rapid reversals stop after we discovered the compass? Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Thread copied here from the Polar reversals how do you fit them in a young earth hypothesis thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Before the invention of compasses the Earths Magnetic field had no real reference point and so just wandered all over the place. Once the magnetic field had a reference that pointed to where it should be it could stop wandering and settle down.

Assuming this so-called "evidence" wasn't put here by satan himself to stray you atheist smiling commies away from god (which is probably the case), remember that everything was perfect before the FALL, so animals had no need of magnetic field to navigate or migrate.Also, the very godly man Kent Hovind proved that there was a canopy of water above the earth back then, protecting living things from the radiation from the sun.This is not to mention that everything was created last Thursday with all the evidence already pre-molded to stray you from god.

Well technically the iron ore in molten lava is a compass of sortsSo no creationist wants to give an answer what if you dont acknowledge this phenomenon it do-sent exists and thus poses no challenge to your 6000 year earth hypothesis?

"What if your dating is wrong?" /creationist modeThat solves the problem for them. See how easy that was?!!

There are several possibilities:

1. The evidence is wrong. There were never any reversals.
2. There were reversals but they don't matter. Wildlife doesn't use magnetism.
3. Wildlife rapidly microevolved to adapt to the changes.
4. etc.

The standard creationist M.O. will consist of switching between these "explanations" whenever it's convenient.Edited by ringo, : Splling.

dating does not matter there where 182 reversals thej just haveto fit them in a period of 4000 years

Magnets were smaller then.

I read somewhere where the continents divided in the days of Peleg. I'll bet they spun around 184 times as they danced their way to their new locations.
The collapsing ice canopy helped flash freeze the cooling lava in various locations all except for one large chunk that was flung away by Velikovsky's worlds in collision and became Halley's comet. Kent Hovind and representatives from the Institute for Creation Research have all assured me this is true. Answers in Genesis is locating the scriptural passages that foretold this and it will provide a nice icing on the cake which will then be force fed to all the unbelieving. The heavenly music stopped, the dance was over.

Hi frako,You've seen mindspawn's output over on the ark thread. Not only does he not consider magnetic reversals a problem, he thinks that they help his case. He is convinced that reversals are part of the special magic that lets him cram 600 million years into 6 thousand years. He thinks that magnetic reversals are the actual mechanism for wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey distortions in radiometric dating.Now that may seem crazy to you and it seems crazy to me, but it is actually quite revealing with regards to creationist thinking. It seems that there is no problem with the YEC hypothesis that creationists won't try and turn into a strength. The self-delusion is so strong in these people that any fact, even a contradictory one, will be woven into the fabric of their wacky delusions. Then, the fact that they can do this further strengthens their conviction that they are right.It's the same kind of behaviour that we see when a new transitional fossil is found and the creo's start crowing about two more gaps appearing in the record. The truth is that mere facts are not what persuade people to believe. Most people decide based on their gut, wishful thinking and the authority of those they trust.Mutate and Survive

Seeing that no creationist has attempted to answer this, I had a look through some creationist websites searching for their non-answer (I think I lost at least 200 IQ points in the process).Anyway, the answer is easy. The Magic Fluddy did it.Here is a 'scientific' article written by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. (the PhD is very, very important to them, it raises them to the level of God and therefore we have to believe every word of it), explaining that the Fluddy reversed those poles a few times.

LOL so the guy even shortened the time in witch 182 reversals happened, to a few thousand years. after the flood that gives us a 2000 year window LOL a reversal every 11 years.But i am being extremely fair in only listing 182 reversals those where just in the past 82 million years. If all where listed we probably have a reversal every day and a lava flow that takes a snapshot of where the pole is pointing every day.

Humphreys is a crank.

quote:

---

Cosmological model

​

Humphreys' book, Starlight and Time, presents an alternative cosmological model to the Big Bang theory in an attempt to solve what Young Earth creationists call the Distant Starlight Problem. Its thesis is that the Earth is about six thousand years old, and the outer edge of an expanding and rotating 3-dimensional universe is billions of years old (when measured from earth). It proposes, using the principles of relativity, to postulate that time ticked at different rates during the universe's origin.[4] In other words, according to his theory, clocks on earth registered the six days of creation, while those at the edge of the universe counted the approximately 15 billion years needed for light from the most distant galaxies to reach earth.[4] The model places the Milky Way galaxy relatively near the center of the cosmos.[5]
Criticism

​

His model has been criticized by other scientists and old earth creationists, such as Hugh Ross and Samuel R. Conner.[6] Humphreys has replied to Ross and Conner's critiques.[7]

​

In 1998, physicist Dave Thomas wrote that in Humphreys thousands-of-years-old universe, he "has his astronomy backwards - the Kuiper Belt contains the remains of the "volatile" (icy) planetesimals that were left over from the formation of the solar system - numbering in the hundreds of millions. If anything, it is the Kuiper Belt that supplies the more remote hypothesized Oort Cloud, as some icy chunks are occasionally flung far away by interactions with large planets."[8]
Sea Salt Issue

​

Thomas also criticised Humphreys' idea that there is "not enough sodium in the sea" for a several billion year old sea, writing, "Humphreys finds estimates of oceanic salt accumulation and deposition that provide him the data to "set" an upper limit of 62 million years. But modern geologists do not use erratic processes like these for clocks. It's like someone noticing that (A) it's snowing at an inch per hour, (B) the snow outside is four feet deep, and then concluding that (C) the Earth is just 48 hours, or two days, in age. Snowfall is erratic; some snow can melt; and so on. The Earth is older than two days, so there must be a flaw with the "snow" dating method, just as there is with the "salt" method."[8]
Helium Problems

​

Geologist Kevin Henke has criticised Humphreys for stating that "zircons from the Fenton Hill rock cores... contain too much radiogenic helium to be billions of years old."[9][10] Henke wrote that the equations in Humphreys' work "are based on many false assumptions (isotropic diffusion, constant temperatures over time, etc.) and the vast majority of Humphreys et al.'s critical a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in these 'dating' equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate."[9] Humphreys has replied to Henke's criticisms.[10][11]
Earth Cooling Model

​

Scientists Glenn Morton and George L Murphy have dismissed Humphreys' cooling model as "wrong" because "it is ineffective, it is falsified by observational data, and it is theologically flawed."

​

Firstly, in a classical model for a harmonic oscillator (like a particle oscillating in a crystal), "the particle does not lose energy to the cosmic expansion."
Secondly, Humphreys' model "is too slow to be useful to the creationist agenda."
Thirdly, "there would be visible effects in the spectra of light emitted during the Flood, including those from stars a few thousand light years away in our own galaxy. A change in the energy levels of atoms (which this idea would entail) would change the frequencies at which light is emitted in a fashion that would be observable. The lack of such observations rules out Humphreys' cooling mechanism as a reasonable possibility."
Lastly, they criticized it for contradicting the theological foundation that Humphreys uses in another publication. [12]

---

Russell Humphreys - Wikipedia
This is why scientists should stay within their field.

Yeah, the bats**t craziness is running rampant in that one. It's good for a great laugh, though.