Why were our lifespans reduced?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

There's a picture on the 2nd link, just so you know what he's referring to.

[Felgar]

I shall pull out a website that refutes the proof of the changes being in the form of the different polarity along the ocean floor....and also shows how flawed the plate techtonics theory is as well.

I have a busy day today so I don't have time to read and try to refute everything he says. But let me say that plate techtonics is not a myth, afaik the movement can be and is measured. In addition, we just saw a great example of movement in the tsunami - the fault line moved 100 meters I think (I'd have to double check that).

And the fact that the detailed mechanism of magnetic reversal is unknown may be true... But the sun is known to flip magnetic polarity every 12 days or so, and Saturn's poles also flip periodically - so it's not like we don't have other examples from which to draw upon.

Although there's more to, it's also pretty commonly accepted that the spinning core is what produces the magnetic field and there's no way that would change in a mere 20,000 years. Consider that the length of a day hasn't changed through history. (or at least it's VERY steady since we could accurately measure it) So the Earth's spinning and in general the Earth's interior does not seem like it could change appreciably in 20K years.

Finally, there's very substantial evidence that life (perhaps not human life) did exist more than 20,000 years ago. Radioactive dating aside there are annual ice layers and sedimentary layers that date back at least a hundred thousand years.

[bizzt]

I shall pull out a website that refutes the proof of the changes being in the form of the different polarity along the ocean floor....and also shows how flawed the plate techtonics theory is as well.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1260669

Over the past 140 years, direct measurements of Earth's magnetic field show its steady and rapid decline in strength. This decay pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that a decaying electrical current inside Earth produces the magnetic field. If this is correct, then just 20,000 years ago the electrical current would have been so vast that Earth's structure could not have survived the heat produced. This implies Earth could not be older than 20,000 years.a [To understand why Earth's magnetic field does not flip, as is commonly taught, see “Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor” on page 100.]

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1816924

Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor. At a few places along the Mid-Oceanic Ridge, magnetic patterns on one side of the ridge are almost a mirror image of those on the other side. The plate tectonic theory gained wide acceptance in the 1960s when this surprising discovery was misinterpreted.

Some people proposed that these variations were caused by periodic “reversals” of the earth's magnetic poles, although there is no theoretical understanding of how that could happen. Supposedly, over millions of years, molten material rises at the ridge, solidifies, and then moves in opposite directions away from the ridge. As the magma solidifies, its magnetic orientation locks in the orientation of the earth's magnetic field at the time. Thus, a record of past “flips” of earth's magnetic field is preserved in the rocks at different distances from the ridge.




Figure 45: Magnetic Anomalies. Notice the wide fluctuations in magnetic intensity as one moves across the Mid-Oceanic Ridge. The so-called “reversals” are simply regions of lower magnetic intensity. Why should the intensity usually be greatest along the crest of the ridge?


That explanation is wrong, as detailed magnetic maps clearly show. There are no magnetic reversals on the ocean floor, and no compass would reverse direction if brought near an alleged “reversed” band. However, as one moves across the Mid-Oceanic Ridge, magnetic intensities fluctuate, as shown in Figure 45. Someone merely drew a line through these fluctuations and labeled everything below this average intensity as a “reversal.” The false but widespread impression exists that these slight deviations below the average represent a reversed magnetic field millions of years ago. Calling these fluctuations “reversals” causes one to completely miss a more likely explanation for the magnetic anomalies.

Although textbooks show these so-called “reversals” as smooth bands paralleling the Mid-Oceanic Ridge, there is nothing smooth about them. Some “bands” are even perpendicular to the ridge axis—the opposite of what plate tectonics predicts. Also, the perpendicular “bands” correspond to fracture zones.9 The hydroplate theory offers an explanation for these magnetic anomalies.

On the continents, rapid but limited changes in earth's magnetic field have occurred. Lava cools at known rates, from the outside of the flow toward its center. Magnetic particles floating in lava align themselves with the earth's magnetic field. When the lava cools and solidifies, that orientation becomes fixed. Knowing this cooling rate and measuring the changing direction of the magnetic fields throughout several solidified lava flows, we can see that at one time the earth's magnetic field changed rapidly—by up to 6 degrees per day for several days.10

Read the rest of the book, it's interesting...difficult at times of course.


I don't believe that everything he says is true (I think the Bible mentions a hydrosphere which he doesn't go for)....but he does have some good stuff.

Got to love Creation Science
http://www.psc.edu/science/Glatzmaier/glatzmaier.html

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

But the sun is known to flip magnetic polarity every 12 days or so, and Saturn's poles also flip periodically - so it's not like we don't have other examples from which to draw upon.

Even if that is true (never heard of it, so I'll look on next link below yours), but you are assuming that Earth is like the other planets and sun....which is definately not true. We got's the water and good atmosphere for one thing.

Also, I didn't say I didn't believe in plates...I'm leaning towards the hydroplate theory, as opposed to the plate techtonics, which is fraught with problems (one being that a huge plate cannot be pushed underneath another one (they are a minimum of 30 miles down, yet cliffs cannot be any more than 5 miles high), because the monumental forces required to push this HUGE BLUNT object into a viscous material do not exist.

You didn't read the site did you? There's one part where he says that the friction of the plates (plate techtonics) is so great, that if you push against the side of one, the side you're pushing on would crush before the thing moved.

And, finally....dating techniques to get girls and date rocks are flawed....*sigh*

And also, the earth's rotational speed is slowing down....but at such a rate that we of course dont' notice it.

[Mastermind]

Water and atmosphere have nothing to do with the magnetic poles rotating. It all depends on the astral body's core, along with many other factors.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

I didn't say they did. I said you can't exactly look at other planets and use what you learn from them and apply them to earth. Every planet is unique.

[Mastermind]

Electromegnetic patterns have nothing to do with a planet's composition though. It's all about the motion in its core, incline, density, etc.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

You're still missing the point-you have to assume that other planets operate like Earth. Hopefully there's nothing you can say, "but, wait" to, because I'm trying to get a point across....may as well shoot a watermelon out of my left nostril, I'd have more success. And, yeah, composition does have something to do with the field. We don't know what the interior of these planets are, the center of some of them could be full of WWJD bracelts or super balls for all we know. Someone said iron flow causes the field....we don't know if they have iron in the core.

[Mastermind]

You severely underestimate our knowledge of the planets. Scientists wouldn't compare them if they agreed with you(which they don't).

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

You severely overestimate. Scientists compare them because they believe they somehow evolved from the sun (which doesn't have the composition of any of the planets)(and makes no sense at all).

And stop saying everyone believes what you believe, that all scientists are supporting you, dang it, such hasty generalizations are stupid. The guy I'm using as a source definately doesn't believe that you can use one planet, find something out, and apply it to another one.

[Mastermind]

Where did I say they all agree with me? I said they disagree with you. And apparently, you know nothing about planet formation, because a star never has the same composition as its planets. if it did, it wouldn't be a star, it would be a giant planet.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Where did I say they all agree with me? I said they disagree with you.

If you use them against me, it would seem obvious you would use guys who you agree with.

And apparently, you know nothing about planet formation, because a star never has the same composition as its planets. if it did, it wouldn't be a star, it would be a giant planet.

I was referring to the popular stupid idea (they call it a theory) that planets evolved from the sun. I don't believe in that...I assumed you believed it since you are a theistic evolutionist. And, please, do YOU know about planet formations? Nobody can honestly say they do. I say they were created-which seems obvious, since it takes some pretty good design to place a planet at the right distance so the sun doesn't suck it in and at the same time the planet doesn't go off into space.[/quote]

[Mastermind]

My God, my brain is short circuiting after reading that monster. Please show me one sane scientist that believes planets evolved from the Sun.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

I can only get two of those requirements-sane doesn't fit in. The theory goes that planets spun out of the sun (therefore going against the fact that diffusion occurs and probably goign against several laws...like gravity probably would suck it back in). I've only read where this one guy completely debunks the theory, that's it.

The Sun contains 99.85% of all the matter in the Solar System. The planets, which condensed out of the same disk of material that formed the Sun, contain only 0.135% of the mass of the solar [url]system.http://www.solarviews.com/eng/solarsys.htm[/url]

You'll say that doesn't mean they believe the planets came from the sun....but it sorta points to it...and that's the first site I found, I'm lazy.

[Mastermind]

I know star formation affects planet creation, and that older stars can't physically have any planets, but they don't spin out of the sun...