Evidence for Widespread Remagnetizations in South America

Not in the least – it points to the model I posted.

Theological evidence that this is a lie?–

You made a false assertion about another Christian here, one that is demonstrably false in posts you have read and responded to, and you have the gall to try to dodge it by switching the subject?
The only theology involved is that you are guilty of false accusation . . . seems to me there’s a commandment about that somewhere.

The origin of the big bang is presently speculative. The subsequent expansion of the universe over billions of years is very substantiated. None of this is “foundational” to geology, radiometric dating, and paleontology, which are all independent, stand on their own, and the broad mainstream understanding is overwhelmingly evidenced. There is consilience to the various disciplines of science relating to the past, but that does not mean adherence or dependence on a model.

1 Like

If it were me, I wouldn’t be so excited about a paper that either demonstrates some remagnetization possibly occurred in a certain geographical area in 100-300 million years old rocks or the rates were a few centimeters per year faster.

Right, you can just pull a Russ Humphreys and draw some squiggles on a graph and pretend this explains the data… Because the Bible doesn’t say otherwise:


Let me quote @jammycakes here:

If we take fair measurements and honest weights seriously, then we can know for a fact the continents most certainly did not move thousands of kilometers in a single year. We are talking rates of just centimeters per year and the paper you cited adds to the body of research that supports that idea.


You’ve already yada yada’d about that before, but it still does not negate the fact that universal physical constants do not change spontaneously and wily-nily to fit the obsessive needs of YECism’s silly science. And why couldn’t it be referring to the fixed laws of heaven and earth? Oh, no good reason except that it belies you.

1 Like

Especially given that some are suggesting that the net energy of the universe is actually zero . . . .
which – to wax theistic – could imply that God just did a little cosmic arithmetic and made it manifest.

He keeps talking like science is a religion!

Which he also gets wrong: Genesis 1 is not foundational to the Gospel, the foundational relationship is the other way around: the Incarnation is the foundation of everything else.

There is a tendency for apologists and evangelists in general, and young earthists in particular, to view the scientific literature as if they were on some sort of “ammunition gathering exercise.” I say “ammunition gathering exercise” here because that was the exact phrase that used to go through my mind when I was at university cycling to lectures in the formation of stars and galaxies course that I took in my final year for the purpose.

The problem with this approach is that it gets you so focused on looking for sound bites and gotchas that you can all too easily lose sight of important details, context, and other factors that experts in the subject are also taking into consideration that cast a completely different light on the subject. It also leads to you blowing things completely out of all proportion, and attaching a significance to the uncertainties and discrepancies in the data that is nowhere near to being justified. This is what appears to be happening in the original post at the start of this thread.

In my case, the one thing I latched onto was one of our lecturers who described cosmology as a discipline where “27\pi^4 is of order 1.” I took this as an admission that cosmologists didn’t care for accurate measurement. It was only several years later that I realised that he hadn’t been talking about accuracy, but about scale. In cosmology, the distances and timescales are so humungous that in some contexts, the ratio between 27\pi^4 and 1 pales into insignificance. There’s no fudging or dishonesty involved in it whatsoever.

When I got into the exam room at the end of the course, I found that I couldn’t remember a thing I’d been taught. My mind went totally blank and I spent most of the next three hours in near total confusion. I ended up getting only 29% on that paper—the lowest score I’ve ever had on any exam paper, anywhere. It was a painful lesson that if you approach your science degree as if you were on some sort of ammunition gathering exercise, you will just end up making a complete mess of things.

The most effective way to rid someone of this irresponsible approach to science is to put them in a science-based job of some nature or another. One where they have to take what they learned at university and put it into practice in situations where they are held responsible for the outcome. You may have to keep them on a minimum wage and micromanage them for a while until they come to their senses, but it’s very difficult to continue viewing science as something “secular” that is not to be trusted once you’ve had to face the consequences of not taking it seriously.


More like thousands per minute in the versions I’ve heard.

Given that the account indicates that Noah didn’t get carbonized and turned into plasma, yes.

Based on this paper: How Fast Can the Ground Really Move? (dtic.mil) those speeds are high enough to produce primarily plastic collisions. Which would make plate tectonics start acting really weird, but is irrelevant given that the energy of friction (coefficient of friction x mass x gravity x distance) is 1.02 x 10^28 J. Given the time involved, that’s 6.5 x 10^20 W. Which, given earth’s mass would heat the earth at about 0.025 K/s. That means that the Earth’s crust will melt in 20 hours, and the earth will end up glowing a dull red at 2200 K. So, pretty much the entire earth would be molten (most second- and third-row transition metals along with carbon would still be solid), and the oceans and atmosphere (and life) would be long gone.


Do I detect a slight hint of irony there? :grin:

1 Like

You dodged again.
Or your reading comprehension isn’t up to middle school level!

Try again: you plainly state a premise that is obviously false on the basis of threads you have participated in–

His assertion that “they are hundreds of millions of years old” has nothing to do with any “premise of old age earth”, and you’ve read enough of his posts to know that. So what are the options – You have a selective memory? You filter everything through a bias that doesn’t allow you to see things that don’t fit?

Pretty much everyone here but two of you understands this thing called “science” and knows how it works. It is evident that you do not, but that is not an excuse for lying about another participant in the thread.

1 Like

The dominant process for minerals locking in the prevailing magnetic fields is solidifying from molten state. As Timothy has pointed out

which, aside from the nautical challenge of sailing on steam, entails that there would be no solidifying at all happening during the flood, so the sea floor magnetic record we have should not exist under what passes for the flood model. So much for less inconsistency.

No. Now that you mention it, scripture does not speak of rapid plate movements at all.


Exactly. That is why so many people nowadays believe in crazy stuff like atoms. It’s so bad there are even papers on subatomic particles. It’s like a cult.

1 Like


But the premise is flawed: papers published but then discredited raise flags when cited by others. One geology professor deliberately gave us an assignment to write a paper (in form suitable for publication) where the topic would inevitably lead us to a pair of papers that had been discredited: if we were quote-mining, we would fall into the trap, but if we were actually checking out our sources we’d be fine – and that was the point of the assignment! Anything at least not obviously ridiculous was enough to pass muster for content of that paper, but falling into the quote-mining trap got at best a D.
Two of us were alert enough to catch the attractive citations, note them, and then use several other papers to show why they were bad options – only two A grades awarded. And that is what is supposed to happen when a “black is white” paper gets cited in future work: it’s noted as something that was proposed but should now be disregarded.

I have to wonder just how many real scientific papers Adam has actually read since it’s extremely common to cite previous work only to negate them.


again you go back to the same dogma over and over again…that uniformitarianism states that scientifically, the flood is an impossibility. So in response to that i ask you, is the entire biblical idea of God miraculously creating a universe and this world scientific? So where does that leave origins now? Are we really going back to Aristotle’s spontaneous generation theory here? Spontaneous generation from what? Louis Pasteur would roll over in his grave!

I do wish more people would figure out that Petuch and Ward (among others) are less reliable than many other authors. At least, I think so. Ward is the one who told my grandfather “I don’t make mistakes”, which is a great attitude for increasing their frequency.

1 Like

Basic thermodynamics and physics states that the flood as conceived of by modern “flood geology” cannot have happened.

The only inputs required for the calculation I did are:

  1. Earth’s surface area (I’m unaware of any claims that that changed a lot during the flood).
  2. The average density of earth’s crust (If there are any pre-flood rocks, then this has definitely not changed enough to meaningfully affect the result).
  3. Earth’s surface gravity (No record of Noah feeling much heavier or much lighter afterwards, and it seems an odd thing to change).
  4. The distance that the plates moved (required under a compress-plate-tectonics-into-the-flood model).
  5. The coefficient of friction at plate boundaries (it’s directly measured today, and would require massive differences in crustal composition or fundamental constants the change much).
  6. Conservation of energy.
  7. Basic unit conversions.
  8. Planck’s Law (which is derived from basic observed properties of photons, and if those change, then atoms cease to exist, and we have a whole new issue at hand).

It is something that science cannot address by science’s very nature. Whereas flood geopseudology is actively and vehemently negated by science.


Not unlike responses (or lack of) to girdled rocks, including the expertise of one M. Oard, serving as a more than untrustworthy consultant.

And including things about the consistency of radioactive nuclide decay rates. Shocking!

And there you go again, uniformly accusing scientists of not believing in anything catastrophic, scientists who pretty much universally believe in Chicxulub and many in Theia!