magnetites, the old earth's ally

Joe, I must confess that I would have been hard pressed to recognise that the original graph and Humphreys' version were supposedly dealing with the same phenomenon. Has the man no shame?A great example of biblical literalism warping perception.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wj:
Joe, I must confess that I would have been hard pressed to recognise that the original graph and Humphreys' version were supposedly dealing with the same phenomenon. Has the man no shame?

​

A great example of biblical literalism warping perception.

---

JM: You know what's even worse? The graph he used is for one aboriginal site in Australia. Those aborigines were making fires right on through the flood!CheersJoe Meert

​

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: You know what's even worse? The graph he used is for one aboriginal site in Australia. Those aborigines were making fires right on through the flood!

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

---

Absolutely mind-boggling. Do you think TC understands how he has been deceived yet?

Another technique in the deception by Humphrey is the placement of the figure in question (Figure 1. Magnetic field intensity at the earth's surface, from creation to now).In the paragraphs preceding the figure, Humphreys talks about archaeomagnetism and gives the reference to Merrill and McElhinney (twice). Russell refers to wild fluctuations, including a final one peaking at the time of christ (holy magnetic co-incidence, Batman). Obviously Merrill and McElhinney had their figure around the wrong way because their corresponding peak was around 2,000 BCE, but nothing significant happened then. So, at this stage the talk has been about fluctuations (as Merrill and McElhinney's paper was also).Immediately below his figure 1, Humphreys has a secion headed "The Field Has Reversed Direction Many Times". He then introduces paleomagnetism and states correctly (if the timescale is ignored) that "while geologic strata were being laid down, the earth's magnetic field reversed its direction hundreds of times."Between the two sections is his figure 1 which labels fluctuations which are discussed before it and reversals which are discussed after. Therefore the unwary and trusting reader is given the impression (through reversing the figure, removing the time scale and repositioning the horizontal axis) that the scientific evidence is summarised in the figure and supports Humphreys' statements.The effect is to give a smooth, uninterrupted flow from magnetic fluctuations (which the general reader is unlikely to be aware of) to magnetic reversals (which the general reader may well know a little about) to Humphreys' theory for reversals and fluctuations, nicely reinforced by being summarised in figure 1.A picture may be worth a thousand words, and a figure speaks for itself.

A question:In the big picture of geologic history, does the Earths magnetic field indeed periodicly reverse, or is it just a matter of variations from minimums to maximums?Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
A question:

​

In the big picture of geologic history, does the Earths magnetic field indeed periodicly reverse, or is it just a matter of variations from minimums to maximums?

​

Moose

​

---

JM: The earth's field reverses polarity completely. The graph (the real one) is only for the past 7000 years.CheersJoe Meert

"Absolutely mind-boggling. Do you think TC understands how he has been deceived yet?"
--Hm... I thought I had allready exclaimed that my argument is different thatn Humphreys? Humphreys seems to be attempting to make it seem as if magnetic reversals are evidence only explainable by a young earth and rapid reversals. While my argument is quite different, being that reversed polarity is relatively consistant with the rate of seafloor spreading, whichever speed they are going.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Absolutely mind-boggling. Do you think TC understands how he has been deceived yet?"
--Hm... I thought I had allready exclaimed that my argument is different thatn Humphreys? Humphreys seems to be attempting to make it seem as if magnetic reversals are evidence only explainable by a young earth and rapid reversals. While my argument is quite different, being that reversed polarity is relatively consistant with the rate of seafloor spreading, whichever speed they are going.

​

---

JM: Sorry, but I don't follow your logic. Remember, the polarity stratigraphy is corroborated from land and sediment records. You need to include the land record in your model. Do you acknowledge Humphrey's deception?CheersJoe Meert

"JM: Sorry, but I don't follow your logic. Remember, the polarity stratigraphy is corroborated from land and sediment records. You need to include the land record in your model."
--I can't find a good reference, could I see how the polarity alignments are seen on continental land masses? It would be most helpful."Do you acknowledge Humphrey's deception?"
--I would hardly call it deception, as I am not going to wrongly accuse anyone, I would have to do the research or ask him myself to come to the same conclusion that you have, as you also would if, say Gould was caught in such a perdicament.------------------

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:JM: I would note the same problems with Gould. Scientific integrity and the alteration of data is serious stuff. Apparently, it's no big deal if you're using deceit to support God. Now how about the other question?CheersJoe Meert

just bumping

"JM: I would note the same problems with Gould. Scientific integrity and the alteration of data is serious stuff."
--I would hope that we would take note of such a thing, and I would expect that your 'own kind' per se would most likely make sure it is absolute before discrediting your scientists."Apparently, it's no big deal if you're using deceit to support God."
--If I found such a thing to be easilly apparently true, I would look down uppon it with fire in my eyes."Now how about the other question?"
--Yes about it? Can I have an answer? I have a Stephen Book with a short section on reversing polarity in oceanic basalt, though I can find none on such an igneous formation of continents.------------------

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:JM: If you want to start a bar-b-que with your eyes, read Humphreys!

quote:

---

--Yes about it? Can I have an answer? I have a Stephen Book with a short section on reversing polarity in oceanic basalt, though I can find none on such an igneous formation of continents.

---

JM:Huh?CheersJoe Meert[/B][/QUOTE]

"JM: If you want to start a bar-b-que with your eyes, read Humphreys!"
--I think it would be best to leave this point before the flames begin to roll! (put on your sunglasses )"JM:Huh?"
--I quote myself (I believet his is what you were refering to when you said 'Now how about the other question?')

quote:

---

--I can't find a good reference, could I see how the polarity alignments are seen on continental land masses? It would be most helpful.

---

quote:

---

...I have a Stephen Book with a short section on reversing polarity in oceanic basalt, though I can find none on such an igneous formation of continents.

---

------------------

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]"JM: If you want to start a bar-b-que with your eyes, read Humphreys!"
--I think it would be best to leave this point before the flames begin to roll! (put on your sunglasses ) [/QUOTE]JM: No need for flames. The falsification of data is clearly recognizable from the source so there really isn't any defense. It just IS.

quote:

---

"JM:Huh?"
--I quote myself (I believet his is what you were refering to when you said 'Now how about the other question?')

---

JM: How interesting that you would tout a hypothesis about something you didn't properly research? That's rather sloppy don't you think? The books and papers are available to you. You can start with Opdyke and Channel's book and perhaps Jacobs book on magnetic reversals. I dare say, you should have done this in advance of arguing your point!CheersJoe Meert