magnetites, the old earth's ally

So How about it TC? Are you going to continue to use this false information ala Kent Hovind? Or will you correct the information and come up with an alternative excuse for rapid reversals?CheersJoe Meert

pushing

TC: How about it? Will you be the first creationist to stop using the Coe and Prevot studies incorrectly?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
TC: How about it? Will you be the first creationist to stop using the Coe and Prevot studies incorrectly?

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

---

Joe,TC has the response to mesage 181 ,Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A, (see 250) in hand. Methinks I'll leave the Coe & Prevot response to you Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

"TC: How about it? Will you be the first creationist to stop using the Coe and Prevot studies incorrectly?"
--I just had it finished about 3 minutes ago but I hit backspace too many times and it backed my browser a couple of pages so give me about another hour or so and I will again comment on the reversals.(Oh thats gotta hurt! (Ugh!))------------------

--Sorry for the relatively rudimentary response, I was a bit frustrated from the first attempt. "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."
--I see no reason why it would not be the way it is. The Flood model has compression, intensity, and catastrophic events. The sedimentary layers and lava flows were layed down in a sequencial order we can agree, and lava flows were layed down in a sequencial order as well. To illustrate:This is the uniformitarian model:
-------------------------------------------------
1-------2-------3-------4-------5-------6-------7This is the Flood model-------------------
1--2--3--4--5--6--7--The numbers could illustrate the lava flows, in either model your going to have corroboration for sedimentation and other depositions. Rapid reversals could be illustrated with the Flood model of deposition, and gradualistic reversals could be illustrated in the uniformitarian model. Indeed these are big underlying assumptions carrying out the validity of the evidence."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."
--What is the location of these drilled cores in oceanic crust?"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."
--Actually this is an extreamly large variable in oceanic sedimentation."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."
--Does this not carry a fundamental assumption? See first response."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."
--You imply that sediment deposition requires calm conditions?"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."
--Not exactly, it means that the rate of seafloor dispersion has been the same rate in a contrasting ratio to paleomagnetic anomalies.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-17-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
ENTIRE TC CONJECTURE SNIPPED ABOUT TRYING TO SHOW RAPID REVERSALS:[/B][/QUOTE]JM: Here's the bottom line rub. There is no evidence for rapid reversals on earth. The Coe and Prevot evidence is not evidence for rapid reversals. Your flood scenario is so absurdly naive as to be useless in your argument. In some cases, an argument is worth pursuing, but in other cases, both parties need an adequate background in the points they are trying to argue. You don't seem to have that background as evidenced by your misuse of data and misrepresentation of the magnetic polarity history on earth and land. Bring us a coherent argument and I promise to give you a reasoned response. Bring nonsense and it's not worth anyone's effort to respond.CheersJoe Meert

Maybe you don't understand, TC, so I will try to explain. Coe and Prevot did not measure a magnetic reversal and Humphreys did not show magnetic reversals in his chart. So, how can you say from this data that magnetic reversals are sudden in nature? This make no sense at all and completely trashes your credibility on the subject.

--Then please take into account my post #21, as it is quite a different point and different view on the subject than my quotes from Humphreys and AiG. If you must, ignore that first post, but I see absolutely no reason why if deposition of these lava flows, as I explain in #21, were deposited in a short time, that this could not be evidence for rapid reversals.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Then please take into account my post #21, as it is quite a different point and different view on the subject than my quotes from Humphreys and AiG. If you must, ignore that first post, but I see absolutely no reason why if deposition of these lava flows, as I explain in #21, were deposited in a short time, that this could not be evidence for rapid reversals.

​

---

You don't show that in your post. You say 'what if'. I say show me the evidence that your 'what if' is correct. There are so many elementary flaws in your 'what if' that it is difficult to know where to begin. So, you start. Provide the evidence that your 'what if' scenario in post 21 actually happened.CheersJoe Meert

"You don't show that in your post. You say 'what if'. I say show me the evidence that your 'what if' is correct. There are so many elementary flaws in your 'what if' that it is difficult to know where to begin. So, you start. Provide the evidence that your 'what if' scenario in post 21 actually happened."
--Actually I don't make a statment in that post on a 'what if', nor do I even say the word 'if'. In my post, I made this point:

quote:

---

--I see no reason why it would not be the way it is. The Flood model has compression, intensity, and catastrophic events. The sedimentary layers and lava flows were layed down in a sequencial order we can agree, and lava flows were layed down in a sequencial order as well. To illustrate:

​

This is the uniformitarian model:
-------------------------------------------------
1-------2-------3-------4-------5-------6-------7

​

This is the Flood model

​

-------------------
1--2--3--4--5--6--7

​

--The numbers could illustrate the lava flows, in either model your going to have corroboration for sedimentation and other depositions. Rapid reversals could be illustrated with the Flood model of deposition, and gradualistic reversals could be illustrated in the uniformitarian model. Indeed these are big underlying assumptions carrying out the validity of the evidence.

---

--So is it this rapid deposition that require evidence for? In order for that to be true, the flood must be able to deposit it, nor should a process thought to take millions of years actually take that long contredicting the flood scenario.--My quotation seems perfectly feasible, if infact these sediments and lava flows do not represent eons of time and could be deposited in the flood scenario without contrediction than it is completely plausable.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

--I see no reason why it would not be the way it is. The Flood model has compression, intensity, and catastrophic events. The sedimentary layers and lava flows were layed down in a sequencial order we can agree, and lava flows were layed down in a sequencial order as well.

---

JM: You don't need to use the word 'if' in order for an entirely 'iffy' scenario to be proposed. So, I ask you again. Where is the evidence that supports your scenario. I want testable details not a bunch of lines of different lengths. It's quite one thing to assert 'it coulda been' quite another to make your 'coulda been' supportable by data. So, let's hear your comprehensive, testable and coherent rationale for rapid reversal during rapid deposition of sediment and basalt that would leave a coherent and correlatable sequence of strata. Tell us, when did the flood begin (how do we recognize the onset)---you can use conventional geologic terms for the strata and we can take it from there. When did the flood end, give us the strata layers that mark the end of the flood. Tell us, in quantitative terms how much strata were laid down, what volume of lava was extruded, how long it would take the strata to solidify (with some concise and clear explanation that is verifiable in the real world), how long it would take that basalt to solidify (be careful here) and how often that would require reversals to take place. Make your argument consistent. I'll give you some time. Stop speculating with meaningless and vague assertions and argue your points like a scientist.CheersJoe Meert

"JM: You don't need to use the word 'if' in order for an entirely 'iffy' scenario to be proposed. So, I ask you again. Where is the evidence that supports your scenario. I want testable details not a bunch of lines of different lengths. It's quite one thing to assert 'it coulda been' quite another to make your 'coulda been' supportable by data. So, let's hear your comprehensive, testable and coherent rationale for rapid reversal during rapid deposition of sediment and basalt that would leave a coherent and correlatable sequence of strata. Tell us, when did the flood begin (how do we recognize the onset)---you can use conventional geologic terms for the strata and we can take it from there. When did the flood end, give us the strata layers that mark the end of the flood. Tell us, in quantitative terms how much strata were laid down, what volume of lava was extruded, how long it would take the strata to solidify (with some concise and clear explanation that is verifiable in the real world), how long it would take that basalt to solidify (be careful here) and how often that would require reversals to take place. Make your argument consistent. I'll give you some time. Stop speculating with meaningless and vague assertions and argue your points like a scientist."
--In the Flood feasability discussion thread there was a list provided:Mid-Oceanic Ridge
Ocean Trenches
Seamounts and Tablemounts
Submarine Canyons
Coal and Oil Formations
Major Mountain Ranges
Overthrusts
Volcanoes and Lava
Metamorphic Rock
Limestone
Salt Domes--These are some of the various observed geologic structures that the Flood can explain, which one do you think is the most nonsense (please just don't say that you think they all are)?------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
LAUNDRY LIST FROM WALT BROWN SNIPPED

---

JM: Please re-read my question. Don't supply me with a laundry list from Walt Brown's home page. Answer my questions, they are specific enough.CheersJoe Meert

Some Deception from Humphrey’slink: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-242.htm
The following refers to a figure in Humphrey’s paper on rapid reversals:

quote:

---

Unfortunately, the archaeomagnetic data do not support that assumption.[7] Instead, the data show that the field intensity at the earth's surface fluctuated wildly up and down during the third millennium before Christ (see figure 1). A final fluctuation slowly increased the intensity until it reached a peak (50% higher than today) at about the time of Christ. Then it began a slowly accelerating decrease. By about 1000 A.D., the decrease was nearly as fast as it is today.

---

Reference Number 7 is to the discussion of archeomagnetism given in Merrill and McElhinny. The actual graph from that text is shown here: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/aborig.gifCompare it to the one in Humphreys paper: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/humphrey.gifNotice what he has done. He has produced a mirror image of the actual figure and re-labeled it including the change to a zero line in his figure. The original figure shows intensity variation about the present earth’s field strength, but no reversal! So, I ask, is it ok to mislead others to prove your point?Cheers
Joe Meert