Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   magnetites, the old earth's ally
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 64 (6786)
03-14-2002 3:50 AM


Using the small extent of my intuition in the geological field, I have discovered a major and largely overlooked flaw in the theory of creationism, one that will probably never be mended. Here is a brief explanation.
I'm sure you'll know, magnetites are rocks that are attracted by the magnetic north.
here is how it works:
>>You have some cake batter
>>You put magnetic chocolate sprinkles on the batter
>>They arrange themselves north.
You bake the cake and they are then stuck permanently in that north-facing position.
This is a more human demonatration of what is constantly occures on our ocean's mid-atlantic ridges, on the sides of the rift valley (we learned all this in science today, and I did a little research for myself). Lava erupts from underwater volcanoes, carrying magnetites. The lava flows down the sides of the volcano and, and in this liquid, the magnetites align themselves with the magnetic north. The lava then cools and hardens, preserving the magnetites in their position, which is always facing to the magnetic north.
Now when scientists looked at core samples of the volcanoes, they found something that was unusual, something that completely baffled them. At close analyzation of the magnetites that had been preserved in the hardened lava, they found that some pointed to the current magnetic north, but others, sealed in deeper layers, pointed to what is today the south! They found changes in several layers. And they never found an exception to the patterns. How to explain this? Well, there are two theories:
1. The planet’s crust moved around the other side of the planet like the peel of an orange. Yet this would require a tremendous amout of force, and is thus unlikely to be resonsible for this anomaly.
2. The magnetic poles- well- moved, from one end of the earth to the other. Basically, something caused a polar flip, so that north was south and vice-versa. To put is even more simply, if you were holding a compass at the time of the flip, you would see the needle, pointing northm actually make a 360 degree turn to the south! But we can only guess what could cause this mind-boggling event.
Now looking back at the magnetites, and using disputed dating methods, we find that the last "polar flip", if that is what it was, occurred around 200,000,000 millions years ago. Do the math, and you find that 200,000,000 years is slightly less than 1/22 of the earth's age (4.5 billions years) in question.
Now here is where things start to get messy for those clever and unusually cunning creationists... According to them and their assertions, the earth is 6000-10000 years old. Assuming that this is true, the last magnetic flip occurred 272 years ago, because if you shrink 4.5 billion years of earth history into 6000 years, and then find 1/22 of 6000, you get 272. But to the untrained eye, this would be nonsense. Compasses had been invented 272 years ago, and ships and sailors were navigating the planet. I would imagine that these sailors, totally dependent on their compasses, would have noticed something out of the ordinary, had the magnetic poles flipped to the other side of the planet. But maybe that's just me.
Now let's look at the other scenario- a ten-thousand year-old earth. Here we get a polar flip about 454 years ago. Let's take a look at the world at this time- The New World has been discovered, and ships are sailing to Asia via south of the Africa. And yes, compasses were around- not the ideal scenario.
The compass, according to http://www.wavespring.com/justin/china/compass.html
was first discovered by the Chinese just a hundred or so years after the supposed birth of Jesus, and soon became "real" and usable in about 900 AD. The Europeans learned of the compass in the 15th century, or the 1400s. Of course, the last polar flip, depending on the creationist model, occurred between 270 and 450 years ago. not one single record of the magnetic poles flipping.
Of course, creationists could resond with their clich-like arguments-the magnetic poles flipped only a few thousand years ago, but C14, which dates the fossils of primitve animals older than the fossils of advanced beings with stunning and seemingly flawless precision, has made a mistake by a few hundred million years. If you ask me, this is a pretty unconvincing argument. Science dates these rocks, while creationists assume that these rocks are 100s of millions of times younger than they are said to be, and also formed before or just after the proposed date of the flood. Not based on any evidence, but based on speculation and ancient mythology.
Then of course, there is the outright denial that this data exists, or that the data is inaccurate, typical of less-scientifically immersed creationists. And so would begin a long duration of squawking, in which creationists would only get the chuckle from archaeologists and geologists of all calibres. Of course, the scientists would talk to them as they may to a child, explaining the symmetry at either sides of the volcanoes, and the perfect collaboration of either side, at which point the creationists would silently retreat to their reality resistant bomb shelter, ignoring evidence and truth.
So, in the opinion of the scientific community, which only works on hard evidence, the creationist model is irrelvant, unless a constituent can present polished evidence (using one of those long lost dating methods that indicate the earth is no older than 10000 years) that magnetites and the lava encompassing the former are indeed 4000 or so years old, which would be a few hundred years after Noah navigated the seas without the use of a compass. (Which would mean that between the creation of the planet and the last polar flip, the planet would have undergone magnetic facelifts a number of times, all causing drastic changes in the world's climate and having disastrous effects on the human population)
Or maybe someone could show us that not only did the continents split in one year at what must have been miraculous rates, but that they also moved around the entire planet, so that north was south and vice-versa, in what would have been a logic defying time.
Oh, that would be the day- a creationist proving science wrong
give it a break.
[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-14-2002]
[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-14-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 4:11 AM quicksink has not replied
 Message 5 by RetroCrono, posted 03-14-2002 7:07 AM quicksink has replied
 Message 13 by TrueCreation, posted 03-14-2002 4:45 PM quicksink has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 64 (6790)
03-14-2002 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
03-14-2002 3:50 AM


I would be very appreciative if TC could give her opinion (or is it he???)
and PS- this information was obtained through a morally corrupt and brainwashed evolutionist drone, more commonly known as a science teacher. All data is property of the International Organization for the Propagation of God-defaming and Morally Unjust Theories, all rights reserved.
The organization reserves the right to assasinate you and your family if you know too much.
[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-14-2002]
[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-14-2002]
[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 3:50 AM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Floris O, posted 03-14-2002 5:04 AM quicksink has replied

  
Floris O
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 64 (6792)
03-14-2002 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by quicksink
03-14-2002 4:11 AM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
and PS- this information was obtained through my morally corrupt and brainwashed evolutionist drone science teacher, so all data is property of the International Organization for the Propagation of God-defaming and Morally Unjust Theories, all rights reserved.
[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-14-2002]
[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-14-2002]

Now you ruined it, damnit! We were supposed to keep it secret, and after decades of hard work you blew it! Now we all have to become creationists
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 4:11 AM quicksink has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 5:52 AM Floris O has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 64 (6794)
03-14-2002 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Floris O
03-14-2002 5:04 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Floris O:
Now you ruined it, damnit! We were supposed to keep it secret, and after decades of hard work you blew it! Now we all have to become creationists
.

The guilt overwhelmed me- participating in a world-wide conspiracy to propagate false theories, defame god, and degrade social and moral values, while at the same time conducting time-consuming scientific research to plant false facts- all for a low salary- just drained the energy out of me.
[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-14-2002]
[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Floris O, posted 03-14-2002 5:04 AM Floris O has not replied

  
RetroCrono
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 64 (6797)
03-14-2002 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
03-14-2002 3:50 AM


quote:
Originally posted by:
Then of course, there is the outright denial that this data exists, or that the data is inaccurate, typical of less-scientifically immersed creationists.
Well, I'm not gonna deny that this is true, but can anyone give me some referrences to look into this. You've intrigued me to check this out. But, with only your word to go on at the moment, can anyone shoot me in the right direction to investigate this?
BTW, what causes a polar flip?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 3:50 AM quicksink has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 8:20 AM RetroCrono has not replied
 Message 7 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 8:38 AM RetroCrono has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 64 (6800)
03-14-2002 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by RetroCrono
03-14-2002 7:07 AM


Veery fair- I think I will find a reference, although I will say that I learned this in seventh-eighth period science from my science teacher. As I write this, my hands are covered in notes.
But for the sake of relability-
http://www.britannica.com/
this provides a scientifically technical definition- doesn't mean much.
http://www.britannica.com/ --> htt p://Encyclopedia Britannica | Britannica...< !--UE-->
Another for those who are very scientifically literate... not me.
http://www.britannica.com/
the above site provides articles from brittanica. If you look, you'll see a very small picture of a volcano, which is unfortunataely only available to premium members of Brittanica, which doesn't include me.
http://www.pilgrimpromo.com/
here is a creationist site that refers to magnetites. Unfortunately, they cling to their belief that there was a pre-flood vapor shield, which would have crushed all humans under intense atmospheric pressure.
But perhaps I have heard wrong from my teacher, or perhaps my teacher i'm wrong. I don't know... Could someone help me out here.
{Did my best shot at shortening the display forms of several long, messy URL's, to restore page width to normal - I can't figure out what the problem is with that 3rd one - Hope I didn't blotch the effort to badly - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RetroCrono, posted 03-14-2002 7:07 AM RetroCrono has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 8:45 AM quicksink has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 64 (6801)
03-14-2002 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by RetroCrono
03-14-2002 7:07 AM


quote:
Originally posted by RetroCrono:
quote:
Originally posted by:
Then of course, there is the outright denial that this data exists, or that the data is inaccurate, typical of less-scientifically immersed creationists.
Well, I'm not gonna deny that this is true, but can anyone give me some referrences to look into this. You've intrigued me to check this out. But, with only your word to go on at the moment, can anyone shoot me in the right direction to investigate this?
BTW, what causes a polar flip?

I was mistaken, but not so that my argument is weakened. According to http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/magneticfield990521.html (go to "edit", and "find on this page"-[last])
the last polar flip occurred 780,000 years ago. This is such a small part of earth's history, that squashing it into 6000 years would mean it happened a few days ago.
Or we could all assume that this polar flip occurred just before man discovered the compass, which would be around the time of jesus... all this based on absolutely keine evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RetroCrono, posted 03-14-2002 7:07 AM RetroCrono has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 64 (6802)
03-14-2002 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by quicksink
03-14-2002 8:20 AM


http://www.nasca.org.uk/Strange_relics_/reversal/reversal.html
this site reaffirms the "polar-flip", and stresses that it is long-overdue.
It also highlights the sheer catastrophe that such an event would cause. Surely, if this event did indeed occur, it would be, and I quote the site:
quote:
capable of destroying all life on Earth
If this event had occurred during the times of humans, all life would have been wiped out.
now I can see a coming rebuttle on the horizon- the flood was the result of this flip
well, there is a difference.
a) a flip would not cause torrential rains.
b) damage would be permanent, and a mere boat would not save anyone. That is, unless, god comes in and miraculously saves the planet from total destruction, which goes well beyond science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 8:20 AM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Joe Meert, posted 03-14-2002 9:38 AM quicksink has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 9 of 64 (6803)
03-14-2002 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by quicksink
03-14-2002 8:45 AM


Hmm, an interesting topic and one that I am keenly familiar with
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert
Here's the problem QS. Ye-creationists originally denied reversals. Now they accept them, but they claim they are due to the flood (at least according to Humprehys). In terms of your sea-floor story, i think it is very important to point out that the reversal pattern observed in the magnetic tows are actually intensity fluctuations that were interpreted as reversals. Later drilling on the ocean floor and land sequences confirmed the reversal signature interpreted from the magnetic anomalies and helped place continental drift on firm footing.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 8:45 AM quicksink has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 10:00 AM Joe Meert has replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 64 (6806)
03-14-2002 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Joe Meert
03-14-2002 9:38 AM


i don't quite understand what you are trying to say...
but I ask how the flood could have caused reversals...
and i am very interested in this manetite issue... we are learning plate tectonics and our teacher did mention that the issue solidified the drifter's beliefs.
But how could a creationist consistently explain this unexplained phenomena? Because the scientific community is so eager for an answer, wouldn't they pay a little attention to the creationist's claims?
and as I did a little more prying, I found that the pattern of magnetic reversals is actually a method of dating, like c14 and the like. Could anyone confirm this?
(I found that information from: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/hominid_succession_helen_lawrence.htm)
well, anyway
[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Joe Meert, posted 03-14-2002 9:38 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Joe Meert, posted 03-14-2002 10:16 AM quicksink has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 11 of 64 (6809)
03-14-2002 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by quicksink
03-14-2002 10:00 AM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
i don't quite understand what you are trying to say...
but I ask how the flood could have caused reversals...
and i am very interested in this manetite issue... we are learning plate tectonics and our teacher did mention that the issue solidified the drifter's beliefs.
But how could a creationist consistently explain this unexplained phenomena? Because the scientific community is so eager for an answer, wouldn't they pay a little attention to the creationist's claims?
and as I did a little more prying, I found that the pattern of magnetic reversals is actually a method of dating, like c14 and the like. Could anyone confirm this?
(I found that information from: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/hominid_succession_helen_lawrence.htm)
well, anyway
[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-14-2002]

JM: Their claim is that the flood caused rapid reversals of the earth's magnetic field. Go figure. If correct, it requires some alternative inner core-outer core dynamics that don't make any sense to me. You are correct that magnetostratigraphy is used as a chronological tool. The reversal pattern in the rocks is random which makes matching patterns easy. The reversal stratigraphy is tied to an absolute time scale via radiometric dating. The nice thing is that magstrat can be used to date rocks that are otherwise undateable (lack of fossils or radioactive material). It works quite well. In fact, it works so well that oil companies are willing to pay to use this information in exploration. That tells you all you need to know about how valuable this information is!
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 10:00 AM quicksink has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 12:13 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 64 (6815)
03-14-2002 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Joe Meert
03-14-2002 10:16 AM


thanks for the clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Joe Meert, posted 03-14-2002 10:16 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Joe Meert, posted 03-14-2002 7:58 PM quicksink has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 64 (6829)
03-14-2002 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
03-14-2002 3:50 AM


--The 'Magnetic Flips', more accuratelly magnetic reversals are indeed real. This should account for special effects of a liquid conductor, like the molten metal of the earth’s outer core. If the liquid flowed upwards (by the effects of convection cold fluids sink and hot fluids rise) this would sometimes make the field reverse swiftly. These plates would have sharply cooled the outer parts of the core, driving the convection.
1. - D.R. Humphreys, ‘Reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the Genesis Flood,’ Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, 2:113—126, 1986.
2. - Humphreys, D.R., Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the flood, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, 2:129—142, 1991.
quote:
Dr Barnes, who had opposed field reversals because no mechanism could be demonstrated, responded (p. 141): 'Dr Humphreys has come up with a novel and physically sound approach to reversals of the magnetic field.'
quote:
Dr Humphreys also proposed a test for his model: magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record Earth’s magnetic field in one direction; the inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction.
Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prvot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90 of reversal recorded continuously in it.9 And it was no fluke eight years later, they reported an even faster reversal.2
1 - R.S. Coe and M. Prvot, ‘Evidence suggesting extremely rapid field variation during a geomagnetic reversal’, Earth and Planetary Science 92(3/4):292—298, April 1989.
2 - .S. Coe, M. Prvot and P. Camps, ‘New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal’, Nature 374(6564):687—692, 1995
AiG - http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3317.asp
AiG - http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3397.asp
-------------------------
Coe, R. S., Prvot, M. and Camps, P., 1995. New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal. Nature, 374:687—692.
-------------------------
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3397.asp
-------------------------
quote:
A decade ago, Prvot and Coe (and colleagues) reported in three papers the evidence they had found of extremely rapid changes of the Earth’s magnetic field recorded in lava flows at Steens Mountain in southern Oregon (USA). Scientists regard Steens Mountain as the best record of a magnetic reversal because the volcano spewed out 56 separate flows during that episode, each of these rock layers providing time-lapse snapshots of the reversal. Within one particular flow, Prvot and Coe discovered that rock toward the top showed a different magnetic orientation than did rock lower down. They interpreted this to mean that the field shifted about 3 a day during the few days it took the single layer to cool. Such a rate of change is about 500 times faster than that seen in direct measurements of the field today, so,
most geomagnetists dismissed the claim by applying the principle of least astonishment ‘it was easier to believe that these lava flows did not accurately record the changes in the earth’s magnetic field than to believe that there was something fundamentally wrong with the conventional wisdom of the day’
There the story would have ended, except that Coe and Prvot have continued their painstaking work. Now they have reported that the rate at which the orientation of the ancient magnetic field rotated reached an astounding 6 per day over an 8-day period, and have argued that these field changes recorded in these lava flows at Steens Mountain do reflect changes in the Earth’s main magnetic field.
These findings veer far from the textbook image of how the Earth is supposed to work. Says Roberts of the University of California, Los Angeles, ‘to a theoretician like myself, these results are almost inconceivable’. Yet earth scientists lack a firm understanding of the Earth’s magnetic field. According to current theory, swirling currents of molten iron within the Earth’s outer core create a dynamo that powers the magnetic field. It is believed that once every few hundred thousand years, the field flips orientation, swapping north pole for south pole. These so-called magnetic reversals supposedly take about 10,000 years from start to finish.
Most geophysicists questioned the original finding. ‘I can’t really understand the mechanism’, says Hoffman of California Polytechnic State University. In the face of this conundrum, some geophysicists are trying so far unsuccessfully to pin the rapid shifts on something other than the core itself. Critics have thus pointed out that the magnetisation might not be primary; it is not uncommon to find lava flows that have been remagnetised long after they cool, for example, because of chemical alteration. Thus they concluded that the alleged rapid changes in the Earth’s field really reflect an imperfection in the magnetic recording process, an ‘artefact’ according to Bloxham of Harvard University.
However, Coe and Prvot (with Camps) have now tackled such criticism head-on, making a convincing case against the ‘magnetic artefact’ argument. The two lava flows they have studied have quite different magnetic properties and yet show similar signals, making it harder to blame some glitch in the record. Hoffman agrees:
‘We haven’t found anything really questionable about the rock magnetics.’
Similarly, they have convincingly countered other hypotheses, such as that the changes in the magnetisation reflected changes in the external magnetic field associated with, say, a magnetic storm.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 3:50 AM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by mark24, posted 03-14-2002 8:19 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 14 of 64 (6846)
03-14-2002 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by quicksink
03-14-2002 12:13 PM


JM: TC, you and your creationist colleagues should stay up with the literature and should try to read it with an eye toward understanding. Coe and Prevot did not document a rapid reversal. They did document (what they thought) was a rapid excursion---different than a full reversal. They have now backed off their earlier claim after examining more of the Steen's mountain. As for Humphrey's, he misused a diagram out of a text book and called it rapid reversals. The diagram he used (copied incorrectly) did not show reversals in the archeomagnetic record, but showed intensity fluctuations (no reversals) through time. Humprhey's doctored the diagram and argued they were reversals! Poor scholarship (if not downright dishonesty) does not make a strong case for your argument.
Let me ask you a question. People generally won't spend money on ideas that don't work. Petroleum companies pay geologists a lot of money. How much money have petroleum companies thrown at ye-creationist geology in order to help them increase the bottom line? How much have they thrown at Humprhey's?
Cheers
Joe Meert
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 12:13 PM quicksink has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 15 of 64 (6850)
03-14-2002 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by TrueCreation
03-14-2002 4:45 PM


TC, For the third time in recent days, message 181 in http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=29&p=12 has come back to haunt you.....
quote:
Originally posted by Mark:"Prevot & Coes data relates to a period immediately after a polarity reversal, & therapid sawtooth reversals appear to be a result of the near zero field intensity of the time. This effect needs study, but most definitely doesn’t falsify the dynamo theory of the earths magnetic field. So, Prevot & Coes phenomenon occurs at the time of reversal, when field strength is at a minimum, & is not indicative of the overlying change.
http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/robera01/node4.html
Hawaiian lava flows which were erupted immediately following a geomagnetic reversal. They note that field intensities were low during the transition and unusually high in the interval immediately following the reversal, similar to the behavior observed in the Steens Mountain (Oregon) volcanic sequence [ Prvot et al., 1985]. A coherent picture therefore seems to be emerging that indicates that field intensities decay during a polarity chron, culminating in low values during the polarity transition, followed by a rebound to high intensities in the interval immediately after the transition. Nevertheless, the details of this asymmetrical saw-tooth paleointensity pattern of Valet and Meynadier [1993] will remain the subject of debate until such behavior is more widely observed.
I am tempted to leave this here, but feel the need to refute rapid polarity change as the norm, rather than a low field intensity effect. Arguing from within your framework, I would expect this phenomenon to be well documented, since the volcanic/tectonic processes at the time, you claim were much, much higher, as such, so would be the rate of lava extrusion. If the magnetic polarity were frantically reversing, then this effect would be present in most lavas. But it isn’t. Furthermore, sedimentation rates of deep sea cores are measured, & at no point is there any evidence of catastrophism. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that the sedimentation rate at any given location, is particularly different in earlier years, when lower layers of cores were deposited. In other words, surface sedimentation rate is entirely in concordance with the layers beneath it. These layers, show magnetic polarity reversals at large time intervals, currently in the 100,000s of years order, these are corroborated by the sea floor spreading stripes of polarity reversal. Given the calm conditions necessary for deposition of this nature, it is reasonable to assume that it never occurred during such catastrophic conditions as the creationist flood. Yet the paleomagnetic layers are still there, corroborating the seafloor spreading basalt magnetic alignment. All of this means that; Magnetic polarity stripes, velocity of seafloor spreading measurements, & sea floor cores magnetically aligned sedimentary layers, remains as evidence of the relative constancy of sea floor spreading.

Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 03-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by TrueCreation, posted 03-14-2002 4:45 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Joe Meert, posted 03-15-2002 10:13 AM mark24 has not replied
 Message 21 by TrueCreation, posted 03-17-2002 1:03 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024