Jump to content


Photo

Another Preflood Relic


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
44 replies to this topic

#41 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 18 August 2009 - 09:11 PM

I'm assuming by "standard" model you are referring to Dynamo Theory.  In which case it appears as though reversals have something to do with intensity(http://www.agu.org/s...oc/hoffman.html), but the relationship remains unclear.  Once again, our inability to fully explain reversals doesn't make the evidence for them dissapear.

Once again, an evolutionist accepts hype over direct observation. Again and again we creationists are accused of "denying evidence". I have already stated my dissatisfaction lies with the misinterpretation of evidence. Evidence must exist in order to be misinterpreted, so my position's pretty clear.

Your polywrong position not only dodges the burden-of-proof, but omits to understand that proposals need to be internally consistent. Has anyone ever built a dynamo which can reverse polarity without reversing direction? Here's a hint: if anyone could do so, they wouldn't be admitting how "poorly understood" the process is; instead they'd be asserting that they'd "discovered" how the Earth's field is produced.

And your own source admits

The ongoing weakening of the field does not ensure that a reversal will occur.

Considering what's at stake, I suggest it'd be a good time for the Godless to remove their evogoggles and start examining things. If they truly believe God isn't going to take care of the Earth, they have no excuse. And if the concern over "global warming" was half sincere... well, anyone can see just how much concern there isn't for the safety and the future of the planet. I don't rightly know how it could be more abundantly clear.


There's B's all over that chart. If I'd made the accusation, I'dve been called a conspiracy theorist & caught all sorts of flak. Thanks for sparing me. Take a look folks - it's right there.

View Post


You may want to take a look at more than one sample before you get too excited such as this one or this one. Seriously, there's quite a few on the page I linked you to alone and that is just an update page. You'll find that not every set of data makes for a good chronology though some clearly do, and those that don't are still presented and problematic areas clearly marked. That kind of blows the whole "they just discard things that don't line up with their beliefs" out of the water.

View Post

When second-best (or third-best or worse) interpretations are permissible, who can be surprised that conclusions consistent with evolutionism are implied? Know what? When alternative interpretations of any evidence are promoted over the best interpretation in the first place, it is a strong indicator of prejudice and impartiality. Doesn't take a whale of a lot of effort to figure that out, now does it?

It doesn't take much effort at all to figure out what makes for a "good chronology®" when evolutionism is involved, either.

(By the way, if you would be consistent in your propagandizing, you might consider accusing creationists of denying the existence of trees.)

#42 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 August 2009 - 06:57 PM

Your polywrong position not only dodges the burden-of-proof, but omits to understand that proposals need to be internally consistent. Has anyone ever built a dynamo which can reverse polarity without reversing direction? Here's a hint: if anyone could do so, they wouldn't be admitting how "poorly understood" the process is; instead they'd be asserting that they'd "discovered" how the Earth's field is produced.


Has anyone ever built a black hole that doesn't terminate in a singularity our laws cannot accurately describe? Does this negate the evidence for both gravity and black holes? It's true we don't have a theory that can adequately explain magnetic reversals. . .but that doesn't make the evidence for them go away.

That being said this doesn't have any effect on radiocarbon dating, the last reversal was way past the range of carbon dates and the fluctuations of the magnetic field since are known from varves and tree rings which allows us to calibrate carbon dating. As far as radiocarbon dating goes, this is a non-issue.

When second-best (or third-best or worse) interpretations are permissible, who can be surprised that conclusions consistent with evolutionism are implied? Know what? When alternative interpretations of any evidence are promoted over the best interpretation in the first place, it is a strong indicator of prejudice and impartiality. Doesn't take a whale of a lot of effort to figure that out, now does it?


I can't quite figure out what you're trying to say here. . .would you mind clarifying your point?

It doesn't take much effort at all to figure out what makes for a "good chronology®" when evolutionism is involved, either.


"Evolutionism" isn't involved in dendrochronology.

(By the way, if you would be consistent in your propagandizing, you might consider accusing creationists of denying the existence of trees.)

View Post


Sense: this makes none.

#43 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 21 August 2009 - 02:06 AM

When second-best (or third-best or worse) interpretations are permissible, who can be surprised that conclusions consistent with evolutionism are implied? Know what? When alternative interpretations of any evidence are promoted over the best interpretation in the first place, it is a strong indicator of prejudice and impartiality. Doesn't take a whale of a lot of effort to figure that out, now does it?

I can't quite figure out what you're trying to say here. . .would you mind clarifying your point?

View Post

Sorry, but after review I find I am unable to think of a way to state things in any plainer language.

#44 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 August 2009 - 06:50 PM

Sorry, but after review I find I am unable to think of a way to state things in any plainer language.

View Post


Par chance then, could you be troubled to relate it to dendrochronoloy? I'm not seeing the connection.

#45 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 22 August 2009 - 04:55 AM

Par chance then, could you be troubled to relate it to dendrochronoloy?  I'm not seeing the connection.

View Post

I have no control over what you do not see. I suggest you consult someone in charge of making these decisions.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users