Do You Believe In A God Or Gods? |
|
Do You Believe In A God Or Gods? |
|
|
|
|
Jul 12 2010, 11:18 PM |
It wasn't even proven by a christian (I'm not this smart so I wont even prove it), nor was it from just one source, so it's unbias...
The average "intensity" of the earth's magnetic field has decreased exponentially by about 7% since its first careful measurement in 1829. The field's intensity includes components of strength and direction and tells us the amount of force turning a compass needle northward. By estimating the field intensity everywhere (in, on, and above the earth), we can calculate the total electrical "energy" stored in the field. Such calculations show that the total energy in the field has decreased by about 14% since 1829. This rapid decay of both energy and intensity was not widely known, even among scientists, until Dr. Thomas Barnes, a creationist physicist, began publicizing it in 1971. He pointed out that such a decay would occur very naturally if the electrical current producing the field were slowly losing energy because of the electrical resistance of the core. This theory is called "free decay." The observed decay rate is exactly what one would expect from the electrical properties of the materials most likely to be in the core. So there's two side of the story now... contradictions from your theory and what was previously thought. The free-decay theory contradicts the evolutionary "dynamo" theories, which claim that complex processes in the earth's core have converted heat energy into electrical energy, much like an electric generator, maintaining the field for billions of years. Many intelligent scientists have been working on dynamo theories for over four decades without great success. Furthermore, recent measurements of electric currents in the sea floor weigh heavily against the most popular class of dynamo theories. Thus evolutionary dynamo theories do not have a good explanation for the rapid decay of the field, whereas the free-decay theory does. However, our historical data on the intensity of the field only goes back to 1829. Was the field decaying before that? Fortunately, there is a scientific way to answer that question. "Archaeomagnetism" is the study of the magnetization of bricks, pottery, campfire stones, and other man-related objects studied by archaeologists. Iron oxides in those objects retain a record of the strength and direction of the earth's magnetic field at the time they last cooled to normal temperatures. Archaeomagnetic data taken worldwide show that the intensity of the earth's magnetic field was about 40% greater in 1000 A.D. than it is today, and that it has declined steadily since then. Such a rapid decay could not have been going on continuously for millions of years, because the field would have to have been impossibly strong in the past in order for it to still exist today. Creationists of the 1970s extrapolated today's decay back into the past, showing that the field could not be more than about 10,000 years old, assuming a constant decay of intensity. Unfortunately, the archaeomagnetic data do not support that assumption. Instead, the data show that the field intensity at the earth's surface fluctuated wildly up and down during the third millennium before Christ. A final fluctuation slowly increased the intensity until it reached a peak (50% higher than today) at about the time of Christ. Then it began a slowly accelerating decrease. By about 1000 A.D., the decrease was nearly as fast as it is today. "Paleomagnetism" is the study of magnetization locked into rocks at the time of their formation. Paleomagnetic data show that while the geologic strata were being laid down, the earth's magnetic field reversed its direction hundreds of times. Reversals are a very severe departure from steady decay of intensity. Both archaeomagnetic and paleomagnetic data contradict the early creationist assumption of constant decay of intensity. In 1988 this was published documenting the great diversity and reliability of the data. The validity of the data required a new theory to explain them. In 1986 it was suggested that strong flows of the fluid in the earth's core could produce rapid reversals of the field during and however this would result with a huge flood. They even went as far to prove the flood was real. According to the dynamic-decay theory, the "energy" in the field has always decreased rapidly. In fact, the energy loss during reversals and fluctuations would have been even faster than today's rate. This information allows us to estimate the age of the field. The data and the dynamic-decay theory imply that, ever since creation, the field has always lost at least half its energy every 700 years. Extrapolating today's energy decay rate back (along with "free decay") to that limit yields a maximum age of 8700 years. The solid line ("dynamic decay") shows that with a significant loss of energy (during the same time as the Genesis flood occurred), the age of the field would be about 6000 years. At present, the only working theory for the origin, fluctuations, rapid reversals, and decay of the field is a creationist theory--a theory that fits all the data. Thus, according to the best theory and data we have, the earth's magnetic field certainly is less than 100,000 years old; very likely less than 10,000 years old, and fits in well with the face-value Biblical age of 6,000 years. Science has many contradictions in it's own theories, but it from what we so far know it is actually fitting into religion, even though the people which are proving it aren't religious at all. I wonder about that... You are right to say this will be a neverending discussion, if all the sciencist in the world came together to prove the earths creation, it would be an all out war of contradictions for ages. Yet small pieces all fit together in my eyes... This post has been edited by Azzaboi: Jul 12 2010, 11:37 PM -------------------- Play Games Arcade Take a break, Play Games! Play the best free online flash games at Aaron's Game Zone like Bloons Tower Defense 4! |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Jul 12 2010, 11:28 PM |
It wasn't even proven by a christian (I'm not this smart so I wont even prove it), so it's unbias... The average "intensity" of the earth's magnetic field has decreased exponentially by about 7% since its first careful measurement in 1829. The field's intensity includes components of strength and direction and tells us the amount of force turning a compass needle northward. By estimating the field intensity everywhere (in, on, and above the earth), we can calculate the total electrical "energy" stored in the field. Such calculations show that the total energy in the field has decreased by about 14% since 1829. This rapid decay of both energy and intensity was not widely known, even among scientists, until Dr. Thomas Barnes, a creationist physicist, began publicizing it in 1971. He pointed out that such a decay would occur very naturally if the electrical current producing the field were slowly losing energy because of the electrical resistance of the core. This theory is called "free decay." The observed decay rate is exactly what one would expect from the electrical properties of the materials most likely to be in the core. So there's two side of the story now... contradictions from your theory and what was previously thought. The free-decay theory contradicts the evolutionary "dynamo" theories, which claim that complex processes in the earth's core have converted heat energy into electrical energy, much like an electric generator, maintaining the field for billions of years. Many intelligent scientists have been working on dynamo theories for over four decades without great success. Furthermore, recent measurements of electric currents in the sea floor weigh heavily against the most popular class of dynamo theories. Thus evolutionary dynamo theories do not have a good explanation for the rapid decay of the field, whereas the free-decay theory does. However, our historical data on the intensity of the field only goes back to 1829. Was the field decaying before that? Fortunately, there is a scientific way to answer that question. "Archaeomagnetism" is the study of the magnetization of bricks, pottery, campfire stones, and other man-related objects studied by archaeologists. Iron oxides in those objects retain a record of the strength and direction of the earth's magnetic field at the time they last cooled to normal temperatures. Archaeomagnetic data taken worldwide show that the intensity of the earth's magnetic field was about 40% greater in 1000 A.D. than it is today, and that it has declined steadily since then. Such a rapid decay could not have been going on continuously for millions of years, because the field would have to have been impossibly strong in the past in order for it to still exist today. Creationists of the 1970s extrapolated today's decay back into the past, showing that the field could not be more than about 10,000 years old, assuming a constant decay of intensity. Unfortunately, the archaeomagnetic data do not support that assumption. Instead, the data show that the field intensity at the earth's surface fluctuated wildly up and down during the third millennium before Christ. A final fluctuation slowly increased the intensity until it reached a peak (50% higher than today) at about the time of Christ. Then it began a slowly accelerating decrease. By about 1000 A.D., the decrease was nearly as fast as it is today. "Paleomagnetism" is the study of magnetization locked into rocks at the time of their formation. Paleomagnetic data show that while the geologic strata were being laid down, the earth's magnetic field reversed its direction hundreds of times. Reversals are a very severe departure from steady decay of intensity. Both archaeomagnetic and paleomagnetic data contradict the early creationist assumption of constant decay of intensity. In 1988 this was published documenting the great diversity and reliability of the data. The validity of the data required a new theory to explain them. In 1986 it was suggested that strong flows of the fluid in the earth's core could produce rapid reversals of the field during and however this would result with a huge flood. They even went as far to prove the flood was real. According to the dynamic-decay theory, the "energy" in the field has always decreased rapidly. In fact, the energy loss during reversals and fluctuations would have been even faster than today's rate. This information allows us to estimate the age of the field. The data and the dynamic-decay theory imply that, ever since creation, the field has always lost at least half its energy every 700 years. Extrapolating today's energy decay rate back (along with "free decay") to that limit yields a maximum age of 8700 years. The solid line ("dynamic decay") shows that with a significant loss of energy (during the same time as the Genesis flood occurred), the age of the field would be about 6000 years. At present, the only working theory for the origin, fluctuations, rapid reversals, and decay of the field is a creationist theory--a theory that fits all the data. Thus, according to the best theory and data we have, the earth's magnetic field certainly is less than 100,000 years old; very likely less than 10,000 years old, and fits in well with the face-value Biblical age of 6,000 years. Science has many contradictions in it's own theories, but it from what we so far know it is actually fitting into religion, even though the people which are proving it aren't religious at all. I wonder about that... So tell me why the strength of magnetism affects the Earth's existence? And also, what about the dinosaurs? Where did petrol and other fossil fuels come from? These are some very strange theories :S -------------------- My YouTube Channel
Lost in all the 2000+ GMC lessons? Check my Lesson Plan Guitars Fender American Standard Stratocaster - Olympic White body, Maple fretboard, White Pearl pickguard, 21 frets, SSS Yamaha Pacifica Amplifier Marshall 15CDR, 45 watts Recording equipment/software Line 6 POD Studio GX Logitech QuickCam Pro 9000 Reaper v3.04 Sony Vegas Pro 8.0 |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Jul 13 2010, 12:02 AM |
I just said theories ignore points and went onto explaining who each of those theories crash with the next.
QUOTE There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself So you agree with me, "Paleomagnetism" is the study of magnetization locked into rocks at the time of their formation. Paleomagnetic data show that while the geologic strata were being laid down, the earth's magnetic field reversed its direction hundreds of times. Reversals are a very severe departure from steady decay of intensity. If you agree with that you also agree with the flood which cause it? Both archaeomagnetic and paleomagnetic data contradict the early creationist assumption of constant decay of intensity. In 1988 this was published documenting the great diversity and reliability of the data. The validity of the data required a new theory to explain them. In 1986 it was suggested that strong flows of the fluid in the earth's core could produce rapid reversals of the field during and however this would result with a huge flood. They even went as far to prove the flood was real. Therefore if the flood is real and timing is the same, the bible must be at least based on real facts? -------------------- Play Games Arcade Take a break, Play Games! Play the best free online flash games at Aaron's Game Zone like Bloons Tower Defense 4! |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Jul 13 2010, 12:40 AM |
Your not getting at what I'm pointing at... I've not saying it's 100% correct or wrong. I'm saying they always come up with their own contradictions in theories.
Mr scientists have taken older theories and blown them out of the water with another newer one, those still don't make 100% sense or have the full picture. However, if you take theory x,y,z and merge them you remove most of the contradictions, getting closer to fact. They have tried this and the timeline of events for each of these things to occur magically lined up with stories from the bible. So my question is the bible based off history or not? Even science suggests it is. This post has been edited by Azzaboi: Jul 13 2010, 12:46 AM -------------------- Play Games Arcade Take a break, Play Games! Play the best free online flash games at Aaron's Game Zone like Bloons Tower Defense 4! |
|
|
||