Bialar Crais

Hrmm..if the field has reversed several times as indicated by physichal evidence, then there's data right there making the extrapolating of "super strength magnetic field 6000 yrs ago" invalid.

HRG

The reversal has been observed, via magnetic pattern on the spreading seafloor. Observations are not restricted to what you can touch with your hands or see directly with your unaided eyes.

BTW, you might consider what happens to an oscillating quantity (ups and downs and ups and downs ...). No need to "reset" anything.

HRG.

Oolon Colluphid

Codswallop. There are many ways and forms of evidence that might refute evolution. It is jammed full with testable predictions which have been borne out -- things which, if the evidence went another way, would have refuted it. (I posted a long list of these some time back, but the search here leaves something to be desired. Anyone know which thread it was? Meanwhile, <a href="http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/evo_science.html" target="_blank">here</a> is the page I based it on, though I added lots more... )

“Anything will be evidence for it” is gonads. Do not confuse the fact that it has not been refuted with it being irrefutable.

Oolon

Xixax

I think with that zzang will not be posting again soon.

( It's rare to see them so quickly accidentally concede their entire argument. It almost brings me hope )

Neruda

damn straight!

Wyz_sub10

[quote]Originally posted by zzang:

No. Fossil dating could contradict evolution. Inconsistents in embryological development could contradict evolution. Speciation could contradict evolution. None of these do. There are many observations that could prove evolution wrong, but all the evidence supports it.

I could assume that my colleague got to work by helicopter this morning, doesn't mean anything would be evidence for it.

There are many things that cannot be directly observed. This does not mean there is no evidence to support it. If I observe a broken glass on the floor by the table, I may not have all the answers as to what happened. But I can conclude 1) that the glass is indeed broken, 2) that it *probably* fell off the table. If I gain further evidence to support the fact that the glass fell off - it was left on the edge, there was construction outside that shook the building, other things have fallen off the shelf, neighbours reports similar things, nobody was at home all day - is it not reasonable to draw a conclusin, or should I be questioning whether someone broke in and threw the glass on the floor?

As for evolution, the relationship is in age, not in process. So even proving the magnetic field is decaying wouldn't address anything unless you could establish that the rate of decay was uniform and was not preceded by a period of stability. And it wouldn't count against the process of evolution, but time would certainly be an issue.

You're not interested in substance. If you were, you'd have read the articles linked which do more than address your concerns.

Your initial post:

Please indicate where you are NOT being insulting and ARE providing substance.

Or...is THAT a double standard?

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Wyz_sub10 ]</p>

zzang

The problem is that there is nothing to suggest that the reversal of the field would cause its strength to begin to exponentionally increase. The only data we have is that the strength is currently decreasing and that the field has reversed in the past. Nothing to suggest this oscillating pattern that your all proposing (with regards to its strength).

zzang

No there isn't, the reversal doesn't indicate anything about its strength.

zzang

Uhm that wasn't my point. My point is we measure the strength up till today (and the data shows that the strength of the field is decreasing) then tomorrow the magnetic field reverses, and after that we measure the strength for several years. If its shown that the field starts to increase then *clap* you were right, but until such measurements are taken there is no reason to believe that the strength of the magnetic field is oscillating with respect to its reversal.

zzang

Some good points, but that data can be explained by other hypothesis, and it still doesn't address problems with evolution such as inaccurate dating methods, misplaced fossils, human prints in too old rock layers, living fossils, mumified dinosaurs,....etc.