old earth v's Young earth

[Deborah]

here is where you should bring your bat and ball to play ball.

Science supports an old earth theory.

is there any evidence what so ever for a young earth theory ?

[August]

No, but don't tell attkmart.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Oh I'll swing a bat, COME HERE! *not permissible evidence in a court of law* And it's a joke....hopefully it will be seen as humorous...whichever the case....


http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-242.htm

Trench warfare in another name. Also, I'd like to say, I think it's the 3rd law of thermodynamics (what is it with me and thermodynamics? Well, for one thing, we're on that lesson in our physics book). Anyways, what the 3rd law says, as far as I can mangle it, is that no matter how well designed an engine is, it will never give you 100% of the input as output. Usable energy will be lost while turning one form of energy into usable energy. Anyways, this just makes me wonder how you can say the magnetic field could be a self perpetuating engine of sorts? There is no such thing as free energy. Anways, good night chaps, I've had a lovely day watching my thread go *FLUSH*

[Deborah]

http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/heavens.html

some light reading for you.

acttually brings to light some gaps in genisis

[August]

Trench warfare continued...

"8a. Has the Earth's magnetic field changed significantly in the last several years?
The Earth's magnetic field is slowly changing and appears to have been changing throughout its existence. When the tectonic plates form along the oceanic ridges, the magnetic field that exists is imprinted on the rock as they cool below about 700 Centigrade. The slowly moving plates act as a kind of tape recorder leaving information about the strength and direction of past magnetic fields. By sampling these rocks and using radiometric dating techniques it has been possible to reconstruct the history of the Earth's magnetic field for the last 160 million years or so. Older "paleomagnetic" data exists but the picture is less continuous. An interlocking body of evidence, from many locations and times, give paleomagnetists confidence that these data are revealing a correct picture of the nature of the magnetic field and the Earth's plate motions. In addition, if one "plays this tape backwards" the continents, which ride on the tectonic plates, reassemble along their edges with near perfect fits. These "reassembled continents" have matching fossil floras and faunas. The picture that emerges from the paleomagnetic record shows the Earth's magnetic field strengthening, weakening and often changing polarity (North and South magnetic poles reversing)."
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/geomag/faqgeom.shtml#q8a

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/ ... s.reverse/

http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/ ... earth_mag/

http://geophysics.ou.edu/gravmag/mag_ea ... earth.html

The bottom line is that the guy everyone quotes on your sites (Barnes) made a crucial omission error, he only measured the dipole element of the magnetic field, ignoring the non-dipole elements which render all his calculations useless.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Don't the non-dipole elements account for less than 20% of the force? I can't remember the exact number. Also, how would the field gain strenght if there's no energy or electricty or chocolate chip cookie dough added?

Well....it's fun debating things based on theories....so here's another. Your guys are all forming their conclusions on the assumption of plate techtonics, which has several flaws in it.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... l#wp829429

The one that struck me the hardest was, how do you get 30 miles (minimum) of rock to go underneath another rock about the same height, into a pool of viscous metal, when the forces don't exist to do that (and if the forces did exist, they wouldn't push the rock, they'd crush it). As we keep on going at it on these posts, I realize one things over and over again...scientists know diddly squat compared to all that's out there.

Oh, and I ALMOST got a video on the magnetic field (recent too, 2003), but I found out the science department has it...soooo....let's see if the guy who was my professor will let me borrow it (assuming I go and ask him).

And just for a side note, I don't wanna start another thread. I tried to look up on a search engine at the college articles (probably peer reviewed)(lol) using the keywords flaws of evolution and flaws of dating techniques...and amazingly....nothing popped up :-p no matter how many synonyms for flaw I use, I doubt I'd find something anti-evolution. I love the level playing field Creationists work on. And those bums find the worst things used to point at creation and tear them apart....and I mean stupid stuff....forget about strawmen....SNOWMEN.

[August]

Don't the non-dipole elements account for less than 20% of the force? I can't remember the exact number.

There is a direct relationship, if one declines the other gets stronger, according to my understanding.

Also, how would the field gain strenght if there's no energy or electricty or chocolate chip cookie dough added?

How would the field lose strength if it is a closed system like you say?

The one that struck me the hardest was, how do you get 30 miles (minimum) of rock to go underneath another rock about the same height, into a pool of viscous metal, when the forces don't exist to do that (and if the forces did exist, they wouldn't push the rock, they'd crush it). As we keep on going at it on these posts, I realize one things over and over again...scientists know diddly squat compared to all that's out there.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/tectonics.htm
Good link, I think it may explain some of your question. Follow the link to the plate tectonocs mechanism after you see some of the animations.

I tried to look up on a search engine at the college articles (probably peer reviewed)(lol) using the keywords flaws of evolution and flaws of dating techniques

LOL, you are an optimist. Don't you know that evolution has no flaws (sarc)?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Bad link, page not found.

And a quick review (fresh off this lesson in physics)

open system: Can exchange mass and thermal energy with surroundings
Closed: Can't exchange mass, but can exchange thermal energy with surroundings
Isolated: Can't do either (the only real isolated system is the universe as a whole).

How would the field lose strength if it is a closed system like you say?

No engine or motor or such is 100% efficient, and it can never be (unless you could get a cold reservoir at absolute zero, which you can't (3rd law I think). Anyways, ADD. There is no such thing as free energy. Any engine that you put energy into will spit you out, depending on efficiency, a lot less or a little less energy than you put into it. The fact that the sun flips is interesting though....but as the site I looked at admits, we haven't seen the earth do it! I think the field drifted several degrees during the Flood, based on the sources I've already spit out (and just so you know August, that's not an insult or anything mean)(and neither was that)(or that)(or that....).

[August]

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/tectonics.html

Sorry, try again. Missed the "l" at the end.

Closed: Can't exchange mass, but can exchange thermal energy with surroundings

OK. So it's about efficiency of the closed system? BTW, how does magnetism relate to thermal energy? The earth's paleomagnetic system is fairly efficient, since it decreases very slowly.

I think the field drifted several degrees during the Flood, based on the sources I've already spit out

None of which are scientifically sound. Just so you know, kmart, that's not an insult or anything, or an attempt to sink the thread.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

None of which are scientifically sound.

Same to you lol. Sigh, you're gonna be the reason I go and do something stupid like taking some geology courses in college...when all I want is some computer engineering/programming/etc.

[August]

OK, so now we are going to debate about the integrity of our sources?

Yours are not published in a scientific journal and peer-reviewed.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Well you find a bunch of peers that'll let something anti-evolution get published. I wish I could find the elephant story....

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... man.htm#ho

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... to.htm#con

Here, I haven't read all of this yet, because I need to take out my contacts, it's getting late so they're getting dry. It's just an interesting site since it shows that the theory of plate techtonics is about as airtight as a blanket (hyperbole, overstatement, etc).

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Paleomagnetic Pitfalls
One of the main props of continental drift is paleomagnetism -- the study of the magnetism of ancient rocks and sediments. The inclination and declination of fossil magnetism can be used to infer the location of a virtual magnetic pole relative to the location of the sample in question. When virtual poles are determined from progressively older rocks from the same continent, the poles appear to wander with time. Joining the former, averaged pole positions generates an apparent polar wander path. Different continents yield different polar wander paths, and from this it has been concluded that the apparent wandering of the magnetic poles is caused by the actual wandering of the continents over the earth's surface. The possibility that there has been some degree of true polar wander -- i.e. a shift of the whole earth relative to the rotation axis (the axial tilt remaining the same) -- has not, however, been ruled out.
That paleomagnetism can be unreliable is well established (Barron, Harrison, and Hay, 1978; Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff, 1972). For instance, paleomagnetic data imply that during the mid-Cretaceous Azerbaijan and Japan were in the same place (Meyerhoff, 1970a)! The literature is in fact bursting with inconsistencies (Storetvedt, 1997). Paleomagnetic studies of rocks of different ages suggest a different polar wander path not only for each continent, but also for different parts of each continent. When individual paleomagnetic pole positions, rather than averaged curves, are plotted on world maps, the scatter is huge, often wider than the Atlantic. Furthermore, paleomagnetism can determine only paleolatitude, not paleolongitude. Consequently, it cannot be used to prove continental drift.
Paleomagnetism is plagued with uncertainties. Merrill, McElhinny, and McFadden (1996, p. 69) state: "there are numerous pitfalls that await the unwary: first, in sorting out the primary magnetization from secondary magnetizations (acquired subsequent to formation), and second, in extrapolating the properties of the primary magnetization to those of the earth's magnetic field." The interpretation of paleomagnetic data is founded on two basic assumptions: 1. when rocks are formed, they are magnetized in the direction of the geomagnetic field existing at the time and place of their formation, and the acquired magnetization is retained in the rocks at least partially over geologic time; 2. the geomagnetic field averaged for any time period of the order of 105 years (except magnetic-reversal epochs) is a dipole field oriented along the earth's rotation axis. Both these assumptions are questionable.
The gradual northward shift of paleopole "scatter ellipses" through time and the gradual reduction in the diameters of the ellipses suggest that remanent magnetism becomes less stable with time. Rock magnetism is subject to modification by later magnetism, weathering, metamorphism, tectonic deformation, and chemical changes. Moreover, the geomagnetic field at the present time deviates substantially from that of a geocentric axial dipole. The magnetic axis is tilted by about 11° to the rotation axis, and on some planets much greater offsets are found: 46.8° in the case of Neptune, and 58.6° in the case of Uranus (Merrill, McElhinny, and McFadden, 1996). Nevertheless, because earth's magnetic field undergoes significant long-term secular variation (e.g. a westward drift), it is thought that the time-averaged field will closely approximate a geocentric axial dipole. However, there is strong evidence that the geomagnetic field had long-term nondipole components in the past, though they have largely been neglected (Van der Voo, 1998; Kent and Smethurst, 1998). To test the axial nature of the geomagnetic field in the past, paleoclimatic data have to be used. However, several major paleoclimatic indicators, along with paleontological data, provide powerful evidence against continental-drift models, and therefore against the current interpretation of paleomagnetic data (see below).
It is possible that the magnetic poles have wandered considerably with respect to the geographic poles in former times. Also, if in past geological periods there were stable magnetic anomalies of the same intensity as the present-day East Asian anomaly (or slightly more intensive), this would render the geocentric axial dipole hypothesis invalid (Beloussov, 1990). Regional or semi-global magnetic fields might be generated by vortex-like cells of thermal-magmatic energy, rising and falling in the earth's mantle (Pratsch, 1990). Another important factor may be magnetostriction -- the alteration of the direction of magnetization by directed stress (Jeffreys, 1976; Munk and MacDonald, 1975). Some workers have shown that certain discordant paleomagnetic results that could be explained by large horizontal movements can be explained equally well by vertical block rotations and tilts and by inclination shallowing resulting from sediment compaction (Butler et al., 1989; Dickinson and Butler, 1998; Irving and Archibald, 1990; Hodych and Bijaksana, 1993). Storetvedt (1992, 1997) has developed a model known as global wrench tectonics in which paleomagnetic data are explained by in-situ horizontal rotations of continental blocks, together with true polar wander. The possibility that a combination of these factors could be at work simultaneously significantly undermines the use of paleomagnetism to support continental drift.

I gave the links one thing up. Cheers *clink of glasses*

[August]

The good thing about the scientists is that it is a dog-eat-dog world, witness the recent expulsion of that german scientist who got kicked out for falsifying information. So the peer-review mechanism works for the natural sciences. As soon as it gets to something supernatural, they won't publish it, since it falls outside the realms of science. The big bang theory was reviewed and published, without much ado, and it supports the existence of a creator.

If we are going to discuss science, we should do it on that basis, don't you think? Otherwise we get a lot of crackpot theories that anyone can spout.

The evolutionists are under attack from the ID community, and although the development of ID is still in its infancy, it is already starting to publish peer-reviewed material. There are many cases of rebuttals and counter rebuttals.

If your sources are right, why are they not published in scientific journals? Some of this stuff is Nobel-prize material. The normal way it happens in the scientific community is that you publish articles for peer-review, and when you are rebutted, you respond to that. The problem with your sources are that they don't ever respond to prove their critics wrong. They merely keep publishing their material as fact, completely ignoring the fact that it has rebutted. That is not the way we can ever win a scientific battle against the atheist scientists. Either we follow solid scientific process, or we remain as what they call "a lunatic fringe of fundamentalists".

Agreed?

[Deborah]

According to Genesis 1:2 The Earth was "without form and void" and in darkness. Since this was the first day of creation, then there could have been nothing living on the earth at that time, no man, no animals, fish or birds or for that matter plants. the literal wording of Genesis 1:2 rules out the possibility that anything at all living today evolved from anything that existed before the seven days of creation. Every thing that has ever been living was related to the life that was created during the creation period of Genesis 1:1-31 and when you add Genesis 2:1-3 we have the history of creation.

But God's word says PROVE ALL THINGS 1The 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. If the earth and universe is around 6000 years old, then please provide the evidence.
But it is probable that the earth and life is millions of years old.
In Australia they found a Marsupial Lion fossil around about 65000000

We need to ask ourselves about the gap that appears to be in Genesis.

If we look at Creation in the bible, we see that god created man and woman in his image on the 6The day.

Gen 1:26-27 God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." God created man in his own image. In God's image he created him; male and female he created them.

This was before he Created Adam from the dust, so who was this man?
Perhaps it is spiritual man. but if spiritual man was created it seems they are male and female spirits. we must ask ourselves how many thousands of years our spirits have existed. because it appears that they existed long before we were given our earthly bodies.