20 Pages V  « < 18 19 20  
Closed TopicStart new topic
> Do You Believe In A God Or Gods?
Religion
Do you believe in a God or Gods?
Theist [ 47 ] ** [36.43%]
Agnostic [ 25 ] ** [19.38%]
Atheist [ 44 ] ** [34.11%]
Other [ 13 ] ** [10.08%]
Total Votes: 129
  
The Uncreator
post Jul 12 2010, 10:03 PM
Post #381


Fire Up The Blades, Moderator
Group Icon

Group: GMC Senior
Posts: 8.933
Joined: 6-March 07
From: St. Petersburg, Florida
Member No.: 1.304



QUOTE (Azzaboi @ Jul 12 2010, 11:50 AM) *
That's not the word of god I was even refering too, it's the word of sciencist as well. They say it's proven by science as well recently. Sciencist therefore state it can't be older than 8000 and yet also state it's billions of years old (make up your mind). The real proof is we wheren't around back then and have no idea of how it, it's all just guess work. Even the dinosaurs are guess work pieceing together bits and filling in the blanks with assuming things.


The Earth's magnetic field is often split in two components when measured. The "dipole" component is the part which approximates a theoretically perfect field around a single magnet, and the "nondipole" components are the ("messy") remainder. A study in the 1960s showed that the decrease in the dipole component since the turn of the century had been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components of the field. (In other words, the measurements show that the field has been diverging from the shape that would be expected of a theoretical ideal magnet, more than the amount of energy has actually been changing.)

Read that, it explains the weakening of magnetic fields, more strongly than the magnetic fields present an age for the earth. When component of one the two begins to die out, its compensated in strength by the counterpart. 99.99% of scientists will agree on this study, and the age of the earth at about 4.5 billion years ago.

That being said, I think this discussion has gone as far as it can go.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Azzaboi
post Jul 12 2010, 11:18 PM
Post #382


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1.485
Joined: 23-March 09
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 6.965



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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alexiaden93
post Jul 12 2010, 11:28 PM
Post #383


Learning Rock Star
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1.518
Joined: 16-April 09
From: Sandnes, Norway
Member No.: 7.072



QUOTE (Azzaboi @ 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), 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Uncreator
post Jul 12 2010, 11:38 PM
Post #384


Fire Up The Blades, Moderator
Group Icon

Group: GMC Senior
Posts: 8.933
Joined: 6-March 07
From: St. Petersburg, Florida
Member No.: 1.304



QUOTE (Azzaboi @ Jul 12 2010, 03:18 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...



Wherever you got that from it avoids some major issues, which I must point out - Again.

1. While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain key properties of the core are unknown - Meaning we don't know everything about the core of the earth...), there are reasonable starts and there are no good reasons for rejecting such an entity out of hand. If it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation is useless.

2. There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on total energy useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days -- e.g., Humphreys (1988). And when the field reverse, one counterpart or the other compensates for the loss in strength in the other, Based on a study in the 1960's (Which I posted before, and will mention again)

3. Much of the energy in the field is almost certainly not even visible external to the core. This means that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its total energy. In short, the energy we measure outside of the core can differ from the measurements of the inside of the core, Which coincides with #1.

4. Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity. Meaning Barnes, the creationist scientist, ignores entire components of the magnetic fields of the earth, how can such a claim be made when you aren't taking in every factor?


That last part is more important than it may sound. The Earth's magnetic field is often split in two components when measured. The "dipole" component is the part which approximates a theoretically perfect field around a single magnet, and the "nondipole" components are the ("messy") remainder - Barnes ignores completely in his studies. A study in the 1960s showed that the decrease in the dipole component since the turn of the century had been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components of the field. (In other words, the measurements show that the field has been diverging from the shape that would be expected of a theoretical ideal magnet, more than the amount of energy has actually been changing.) Barnes' extrapolation therefore does not really rest on the change in energy of the field.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Azzaboi
post Jul 13 2010, 12:02 AM
Post #385


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1.485
Joined: 23-March 09
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 6.965



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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Uncreator
post Jul 13 2010, 12:08 AM
Post #386


Fire Up The Blades, Moderator
Group Icon

Group: GMC Senior
Posts: 8.933
Joined: 6-March 07
From: St. Petersburg, Florida
Member No.: 1.304



And when the fields reverse, the nondipole component of the magnetic field compensate for loss in strength. Barne's ignored the nondipole component of the magnetic field - Just as you are. I am not trying to be mean, but you are avoiding something rather serious, and which puts a major hole in Barnes and Creationist scientists theory for the age of the earth.

The nondipole segment exists, it has power, strength and intensity, and it compensates for losses in the dipole segment of the magnetic field, during these reversals, Please explain that to me scientifically - Barnes' ignored it - So I don't trust his work, I trust pretty much no work that deliberately excludes factors which affect the outcome of the works results.

There have been many flood in earths 4.5 billion year history, many probably greater than Gods supposed one. Just because there were floods does not prove that Gods flood happened, or that the bible is based on real facts.

That asteroid that destroyed the dinosaurs millions of years ago probably made really wicked flood, Does not mean God had one has well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Azzaboi
post Jul 13 2010, 12:40 AM
Post #387


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1.485
Joined: 23-March 09
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 6.965



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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Uncreator
post Jul 13 2010, 02:30 AM
Post #388


Fire Up The Blades, Moderator
Group Icon

Group: GMC Senior
Posts: 8.933
Joined: 6-March 07
From: St. Petersburg, Florida
Member No.: 1.304



Ok then, I think we have arrived at the point where none of us have anything else to add. We have said all that can be said from both sides of the arguments, and this thread has exhausted itself I believe.

So with the blessing of the other moderators, The thread will be closed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

20 Pages V  « < 18 19 20
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 


RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd March 2017 - 09:13 PM