Nat

"but that data can be explained by other hypothesis"

Please provide a falsifiable hypothesis that explains the available data better than the ToE and its related theories.

"inaccurate dating methods"

Which dating methods are inaccurate and why do you believe that they are inaccurate (notice, inaccurate here must mean beyond the expected error margin for the test)?

"misplaced fossils"

What do you mean by this? What fossils are "misplaced?"

"human prints in too old rock layers"

Do you realize that most creationist deny these are actually human prints? Why do you deny the opinions of experts that have determined that the prints are not actually human and many of them are actually hoaxes?

"living fossils"

What do you mean by this? Are you bringing up the oft stated but easily refuted Ceolcanth argument?

"mumified dinosaurs"

Please provide a source for this assertion of evidence.

Cheers

zzang

Fossil dating? How convenient since you can't date fossils, just the rocks they're in. For the sake of argument I'll assume radiometric dating is accurate but thats a pretty big leap in logic to date the fossils by the rocks surrounding them, I could bury you in rocks that date to be 2 billion years old but that doesn't mean you were around back then. Oh and how could speciation, a supposed prediction of evolution, contradict it?


<strong> Well I guess thats where we differ, I agree with you on point 1, but only if I recognize the peices of the glass as belonging to a glass I know was once not broken, otherwise for all we know the glass could have always been that way. I definately wouldn't conclude 2 simply based on some broken pieces of glass on the floor.

<strong> With every passing year we get more data to determing if the rate is uniform. Why would I have to establish that there wasn't a period of stability? If you claim that there was then the burden of proof is on you. Frankly that claim is as ridiculous as me saying "well the rate of the Earth's rotation is decreasing but you have to establish that this has been uniform and wasn't preceeded by a period of stability."



<strong> Oh, so if I happen to disagree with the article it means I didn't read it? Thats funny.

<strong> Hmmm, it wasnt I who accused you of not reading an article or claiming that you don't comprehend basic science.

Nat

"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."

Do you understand how a field reversal works? Here is a hint - it does not just suddenly reverse itself over as you implied with your statement about it reversing tomorrow. The analogy of an AC current is perfect here - think about it for a second.

Skydancer

And our point is that we have several million years worth of these measurements. If the field had been at such high levels in the recent past, the residual magnetic fields trapped in the seafloor rocks would be much higher than observed. What we have observed in the magnetic striping, particularly around the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, is consistent with a periodically reversing field over the past several million years and is specifically not consistent with an exponential decay from a very high level.

Your refusal to accept naturally recorded data does not make the data go away. The rocks are there - unless you can explain how your hypothesis better fits the observations, no rational, scientifically trained person is going to be impressed.

Tim Thompson

Oolon Colluphid: Incidentally, I haven't seen Tim around recently ... you still here Tim?

Watching from the sidelines; work keeps me more than simply "busy".

In my treatise "<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html" target="_blank">On Creation Science and the Alleged Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field</a>", I harshly criticized the "theory" put forth by Thomas Barnes. However, note that the hypothesis put forward since then by D. Russell Humphreys is rather different. Barnes ridiculed the idea that the Earth's magnetic field had ever reversed itself, but Humphreys accepts the reality of reversals (though disputing the time scale). Barnes ridiculed the idea of dynam theory, but Humphreys is much more circumspect in his approach. Humphreys thinks that standard dynamo theory is wrong, though I have never seen him explain why. But he does have his own, alternative "dynamo" theory that looks a lot like something that would be invented by a 1st year circuit design student; correct perhaps "in principle", but woefully oversimplified, to the point of absurdity. Humphreys is stuck between the rock and the hard place; he can't ridicule dynamo theory the way Barnes did, or he would not be able to present his own version, but he also can't accept dynamo theory as presented in standard physics without opening the door for a legitimate "old Earth" interpretation.

Humphreys' recent endavor "<a href="http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm" target="_blank">The Earth's Magnetic Field is Still Losing Energy</a>" is overplayed. Dalrymple and others have claimed that energy is simply migrating from the dipole component into higher order components of the field (note that all talk up to now about the "decay" of the magnetic field apply to data which measure only the dipole and no other components). Humphreys has used the various <a href="http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/seg/gmag/igrfpg.pl" target="_blank">International Geomagnetic Reference Fields</a> to compute the total field energy, to show that the total energy is in fact decreasing "significantly" over time, in contrast to what "evolutionists" have argued about energy migrating to higher order components.

So far as I can tell, his technical result is correct; the total field energy really appears to have decreased over the IGRF time period. Whether or not the amount of decrease is really "significant" remains an open question, I think. But Humphreys' interpretation is not supported by anything other than prejudice. He claims it is prima-facie evidence for a "young" earth, but has no basis in science or fact to support such a claim. All it really means is that energy is migrating from the magnetic field to somewhere/something else. No real surprise, since the magnetic field is strongly coupled to fluid motions in the earth's liquid outer core. If energy can go one way (from fluid through MHD to the magnetic field), then it can go the other way too (from the field into fluid motions). There is no "arrow of time" problem here. Only the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and a few esoteric affairs in quantum mechanics are not time symmetric, and none of them are operating in that sense here.

Humphreys may indeed have demonstrated that his critics were wrong on one point, but that does not justify the far fetch of his conclusion.

zzang: ... 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

Far too naive, and quite wrong. There are lots of reasons. The most obvious is that the strength of the imposing field (i.e., the earth's magnetic field) is determined from the strength of the imposed field (the rock magnetic field), which process can be calibrated by laboratory studies. So we have good indirect measurements of that field from the rocks, and therefore good reason to believe that the imposing field strength really does oscillate, since that's what the data show.

Another good reason is that dynamo theory, though complex enough, does provide guidance. The strength of the earth's magnetic field is directly connected to the strength of the MHD processes that generate the field (fluid flow velocity & bulk flow). If those quantities do not change significantly, then neither will the strength of the stable field. The polarity, on the other hand, is far more susceptible to small scale variations which would not affect the field strength, but would affect the direction of the dipole axis.

The combination of measured imposed field, plus guidance from dynamo theory, both point towards the same conclusion: the field strength oscillates, at least approximately.

zzang: For the sake of argument I'll assume radiometric dating is accurate but thats a pretty big leap in logic to date the fossils by the rocks surrounding them ...

And now we move far afield from the magnetic field. But this claim too is just plain wrong. Consider two parallel lava flows, intact, and one on top of the other, with fossil bearing rocks between. Radiomagnetic dating will tell us the age of each flow, normally revealing that the flow on top is younger than the one on the bottom. So we assume, even if we can't date them directly, that the rocks & fossils in between the flows in space, are also in between the flows in time. Why is that a bad assumption?

CND

Concerning the mummified dinosaur, I am pretty sure zzang is talking about the mummufied hadrosaur that was found. While it is called a mummy, it is not a mummy like a frozen mammoth is one. The skin of the hadrosaur dried and shrunk around its bones, but it was still fossilized.

Wyz_sub10

You date fossils by the rock surrounding them and relative to other layers. Therefore “fossil dating” is not an inaccurate term. Fossil discoveries are made independently around the world and the evidence corroborates the technique. You’d have a hard time burying me in solid rock, and a harder time burying enough people that my discovery didn’t look like an anomaly. It does occur that a younger fossil can be found in older rock, but where is your evidence that processes responsible for this are so widespread and common as to render the relationship between rock and fossil meaningless?

Speciation, as you say, is a prediction of evolution. Opponents of evolution often argue that it is not a testable theory. Here we have an observed prediction of evolutionary theory and you say that it is not meaningful. Are you saying that a prediction cannot support or contradict a theory because it is a prediction of the theory? That doesn’t make any sense. If speciation didn’t occur, then evolution would have to address the fact it “stopped” Continued speciation is evidence of evolution. If speciation *did* occur, but through a means inconsistent with evolutionary theory, then that would be a contradiction.

Yes, the glass could always have been that way. But all you are saying is that you would require more evidence to prove otherwise. Study of the fragments could easily prove that the glass was once “connected”. It would not be difficult to determine that this was once a single structure. Once you did, we would be back to point number 2. Remember, you are looking for the best explanation based on the evidence available. It’s not just the broken pieces, it’s the rest as well. If you have evidence that would support the glass being on the floor for any length of time longer than the other fallen objects, or that the glass was not part of a whole, then you should reject my theory. But the facts are still on my side in this case.

You ask – why would proving uniformity or such be necessary? Because if the earth’s magnetic field did suggest a limit on life of 11,000, it would not just fly in the face of evolution, but in a number of scientific observations. If I found your wallet with someone else’s credit card, would I be wiser in assuming you aren’t who you claim to be, despite a passport, driver’s license, library card, blood donor card, etc.? Or should I re-examine the issue with the credit card to see if there might be another explanation. Why should one piece of data invalidate 10 pieces of data without critical examination? You’re right – the burden is on me to establish initial stability, if that’s my theory. But you are the one claiming life couldn’t exist under these conditions, yet clearly it did. So the burden is on you to defend your theory.

You’re right. I shouldn’t have assumed you didn’t read them (not just one article). So either you don’t understand the data, understand the data but have a “better” explanation that runs contrary to what most in the field think (and if so, I await your paper when it’s published), or understand the data but simply refuse to accept it. I stand by the inference that you are not interested in facts.

No, your accusation was hypocrisy. And if you think that evolutionary theory is based on extrapolations of “micro-evolution backwards in time” then it’s obvious that you don’t understand the basics of evolution, at the very least. Take it up with your 10th grade science teacher, not me.

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

ps418

Zzang:

Wrong. We have plenty of information on the strength of the magnetic field in the past, its paleointensity. I pointed this out in my first post to this thread. Here are some links to free papers on the internet explaining how paleointensity can be derived from sedimentary and igneous rocks.

<a href="http://sorcerer.ucsd.edu/tauxe/pdfs/constable96.pdf" target="_blank">Constable, C. and Tauxe, L., 1996. Towards absolute calibration of sedimentary paleointensity records, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 143, pp. 269-274. [PDF] </a>

<a href="http://sorcerer.ucsd.edu/tauxe/pdfs/juarez98.pdf" target="_blank">Juarez, M.T., Tauxe, L., Gee, J., and Pick, T., 1998. The intensity of the Earth's magnetic field over the past 160 million years, Nature 394, pp. 878-881. [PDF]</a>

<a href="http://sorcerer.ucsd.edu/tauxe/pdfs/juarez00.pdf" target="_blank">Juarez, M.T. and Tauxe, L., 2000. The intensity of the time average geomagnetic field: the last 5 Myr, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 175, pp. 169-180 [PDF]</a>

<a href="http://sorcerer.ucsd.edu/tauxe/pdfs/kok99.pdf" target="_blank">Kok, Y.S., and Tauxe, L., 1999. Long-tau VRM and relative paleointensity estimates in sediments, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 168, pp. 145-158. [PDF] </a>

<a href="http://sorcerer.ucsd.edu/tauxe/pdfs/pick93b.pdf" target="_blank">Pick, T. and Tauxe, L., 1993. Geomagnetic paleointensities during the Cretaceous normal superchron measured using submarine basaltic glass, Nature 366, pp. 238-242. [PDF] </a>

<a href="http://sorcerer.ucsd.edu/tauxe/pdfs/selkin00.pdf" target="_blank">Selkin, P. and Tauxe, L., 2000. Long term variations in geomagnetic field intensity, Philosophical Transactions Royal Society 358, pp. 869-1223. [PDF]</a>

<a href="http://sorcerer.ucsd.edu/tauxe/pdfs/tauxe93.pdf" target="_blank">Tauxe, L., 1993. Sedimentary records of relative paleointenstiy of the geomagnetic field: theory and practice, Reviews of Geophysics 31, pp. 319-354. [PDF] </a>

ps418

Zzang:
Right, and that is why you have to find minerals that formed syndepositionally, such as sanidines or zircons in volcanic ash layers, which can provide bracketing ages.

Oolon Colluphid

Such as? Please explain how other hypotheses explain for instance fossil series, endemic flightless birds, thylacines and marsupial moles, ‘transitional’ fossils (eg Ambulocetus, Procynosuchus) and birds having dormant genes for making teeth.

And anyway, the point was to refute your claim that anything could be evidence for evolution. It seems you are indeed refuted.

It wasn’t meant to

Covered splendidly by others.

Examples please.

Real ones? Examples please.

&lt;Sigh&gt; A lineage will only change if there’s a change in the niche, or by branching out from that niche. In very stable niches such as that occupied by Latimeria (coelacanths), there’s no need to change drastically -- they ain’t the same species as ancient ones -- from what already works in the environment. This is really the “if we’re descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” canard. Reductio ad absurdam: If we are descended from bacteria, why are there still bacteria? Because both are ways of making a living. Why are there still fish? Because there’s a living to be made on land as well. Why are there still coelacanths? Because it’s still a viable way to make a living, and the niche is specialised and stable enough that nothing else has replaced that lineage. Got it? See <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001466" target="_blank">this thread</a> and especially Mr Darwin’s link to an earlier one for further details.

As already pointed out, it may be mummified; it’s also most definitely fossilised. And why the plural?

Etc? Ooh let me see... Haeckel’s embryos? No missing links, perhaps? Zzang, did it ever occur to you to look into this stuff before spouting cretinist claptrap?

TTFN, Oolon