That may be their intention, but they will not achieve it as long as they are making claims that are easily falsified.
2 Likes
Have you guys considered how much water is in the hydrosphere? Is there even that much water? Or would it not matter if squid were taking up all the room anyway?
Links to text are always better. But I found an article that describes his theory. First problem is the Coe paper does not describe field reversals just field variations. Humpreys has, as far as I can tell, never found any archeomagnetic record of a field reversal that takes place in a very short period of time. One reason probably being that if his theory is correct the field would be reversing once a day to get all of the recorded reversals to fit into the flood. Since it takes time for rock to cool and lock in the magnetic field there should be no record of field reversals from the flood. But there are. If you can point me to a text where Humpreys directly addresses the seafloor magnetic strips I would appreciate it. Hopefully he will address how using the current rate of plate separation as measured by GPS dates each stripe to a known field reversal.
I won’t mention the problem with sedimentary rock that can also record the magnetic field but requires the fine grains to settle in a quiet environment (i.e. not a global flood) to do so. I am sure you have an article in your archive that would dispute this.
Nope. Dr. Wise is on record saying that no evidence will ever change his mind. That is why Dawkins calls him an honest creationist.
Which peer reviewed journal does this appear in?
Then what features would a geologic formation need in order for you to conclude that it took long time periods to form?
What features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify a recent global flood?
1 Like
Then why would they have to invoke complete changes in the most fundamental laws of nature in order for their claimed “correct history” to be true? They seem more concerned about protecting their own beliefs than they are the truth.
1 Like
I suspected you would not be able to give up promoting your unprovable theory.
Now that I have done some math, I am not buying your numbers. So, prove it! Prove there are even a quadrillion. Prove there are even a trillion. That shouldn’t be too difficult.
You mean, based on your theory.
No, you must first prove your numbers. Then I will do additional calculations.
For the record, what other lifeforms are found in that layer?
There are some excellent theories that appear geologically sound, but I doubt you will be interested. You seem fixated on 15 year-old research.
This is a segment on Plate Tectonics and Rapid Subduction, for anyone who is interested. The lecturer is Dr. Kurt Wise, PhD, Geology, Harvard.
I have read that when the scientific establishment thugs tried to get rid of Kurt Wise – when they tried to keep him from getting a PhD – Gould defended him. Has anyone else heard that?
You may notice in the video segment that Wise seem both enthusiastic and “giddy” much of the time. That would hardly be the attitude of a honest man promoting fake science.
LXX
First, the numbers must be verified. If they are accurate, then we must determine how they ended up in that one area. Perhaps they were territorial, rather than migratory. At this point in time, the research is flimsy.
If there were a quadrillion 2ft long squid that were fossilized in that small basin. it would be a major blow to creation theory since the rostrums alone would literally fill the top two feet. Further, a quadrillion squid of that size, assuming about 4 squid per cu.ft., would occupy a significant portion of the surface of today’s seas.
I performed a quick calculation, and 1/1000th of the earths 3,9E15 sq.ft. of ocean surface would require a minimum depth of 64 feet to hold 1 quad. tightly packed squid. Quadruple that depth if they are to have any breathing and wiggle room (check my calculations), Those numbers are not impossible in ancient seas where there was no fishing pressure, pollutants, etc., but they are not likely (all things are possible, but some not likely).
Therefore, more research is required to confirm the number of squid claimed.
LXX
You’re slandering thousands of my brothers and sisters in Christ by your choice of words
You overlooked a small detail that Wise mentioned: the “two geologists” were in fact able to get their paper published in 1992.
This outcome flatly contradicts your statement that science journals simply will not publish any research that might be construed as a rejection of prevailing theories. The 2 geologists were making an extraordinary claim, so it needed better evidence. When they were able to find it, they were able to publish in a peer-reviewed journal. That’s exactly the way science is supposed to work.
I would be interested in looking at the paper by the 2 geologists, as well as to see what follow-up research has occurred. Unfortunately, a reference to “two geologists” and 1992 is not enough to get me there. If you can provide me with a link, I’d be most grateful. Otherwise, I’ll have no alternative but to file this away as “unsubstantiated.”
1 Like
Well, the research is counting. It’s not this big problematic question that merits all this deep questioning for anyone other than young earth creationists, for whom the counting can’t be right.
1 Like
Hi @LXX_Researcher -
The RATE research head acknowledged a key scientific problem connected with their hypothesis of accelerated radioactive decay:
The amount of heat produced by a decay rate of a million times faster than normal during the year of the Flood could potentially vaporize the earth’s oceans, melt the crust, and obliterate the surface of the earth.
He also mentioned Humphrey’s speculation that an ad hoc episode of cosmic inflation could resolve the problem. However, Humphrey’s speculation is a non-starter for 4 different reasons, per Morton and Murphy. I’m curious about your thoughts on Morton and Murphy’s refutation.
I believe Wise references their research in his lecture, and it woUld be the most up to date. These are the YEC papers I have in my library that reference Coe and Prevot:
This one is recent (2014):
The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young
This one is a recent reply to feedback (2014):
Earth’s rapid magnetic field reversals: Why has one author retracted?
Others:
‘Fossil’ magnetism reveals rapid reversals of the earth’s magnetic field
The Earth’s magnetic field and the age of the Earth
The ‘principle of least astonishment’!
This one is outdated, with an Editor’s Note:
The Earth’s magnetic field
Humphreys mentions smaller and larger grains in the above reply (the second link, but I am not certain that is what you are looking for.
LXX
And exactly which one of these links addresses @Bill_II’s specific point here?
Please point us to the exact location in the exact article.
They were initially rejected, Chris.
My statement was not intended to be absolute, Chris. Even YEC’s get a paper through every now an then. But they have to be very careful in their wording, and especially their conclusions. Any research that contradicts the old-earth theory is almost universally rejected. Anyone who has been around the block a few times knows the peer-review process is highly bias in favor of the current dogma.
I am not certain, but I believe it was Coe and Prevot. Coe retracted about 20 years later (not Prevot). I posted a link to a paper by Humphreys responding to a question about the retraction in my last post to Bill, titled “Earth’s rapid magnetic field reversals: Why has one author retracted?”.
LXX
You would think Humphreys would address the seafloor magnetic strips as they would be a great indication he was correct if he could come up with a way to address them.
The grains I was mentioning are sand grains in sedimentary rock not igneous rock. They record the magnetic field present when they settle out but it has to be a slow gentle process not a global flood.
I should add here the reason for this: in turbulent flood waters, the turbulence would overcome the effects of the magnetic field in aligning the grains as they settle.
It appears to be significant to Joel and James, but I had not heard a whisper about it until James mentioned it. If YEC geologists and paleontologists thought it was significant, they would be all over it. I suspect the same for evolutionary geologists and paleontologists. But neither are beating down to door. If it is right it is right, but we need more data.
LXX
And in that article there is a reference to an actual paper, Extremely rapid directional change during Matuyama-Brunhesgeomagnetic polarity reversal, which is available here if interested. Only problem being “Extremely Rapid” means 2,500 years for the period of instability followed by 3,000 years before the reversal. Do the people who read Creation.com not check the references?
Multiply this by the number of magnetic field reversals that Dr. Humphreys accepts have happened and what do you get? Way more than 10,000 years for sure.
Why I don’t trust much of the YEC stuff.
From the article:
Yes the reversal was fast, less than 100 years, but it required 5,500 years before that could happen.
2 Likes
That is beyond my paygrade.
I am taking a little time out to study this. Do you have a link to Morton and Murphy?
LXX
What more data do you need? It’s just a matter of measuring the thickness of the layer of belemnite rostrums.
As for my calculations, which you are dismissing as a “theory,” I don’t know how I could make them any clearer.
- Your own calculations say that a quadrillion belemnites would deposit a layer of rostrums just one and a half feet deep in the Bighorn Basin.
- Joel’s article tells us that the layer of belemnite fossils that he saw with his own eyes was tens of feet thick and in some cases possibly as many as a hundred feet thick. What evidence do you have that it could have been substantially less?
- We can calculate how much squid there must have been because we know how much bigger they were than their rostrums. We know this because there have been occasional fossil finds of more complete specimens. A rostrum was about one tenth the length of the belemnite, and judging from the drawings, the width of the belemnite was about three to five times that of the rostrum. See this article again. Therefore, the minimum volume of a belemnite is between 10x3x3 = 90 and 10x5x5 = 250 times the volume of the rostrum.
- A layer of rostrums one hundred feet thick must have come from a much larger volume of squid. This volume could only have increased in the vertical direction, since the horizontal directions extend both ways for over a thousand miles.
- Therefore, to squeeze all these belemnites into that area, the minimum depth they could occupy would be one hundred feet times ninety = nine thousand feet.
- Whether there were trillions, quadrillions or quintillions of them is irrelevant.
If that doesn’t make sense to you, then quite frankly I don’t know what else I can say that will.
Is the fact that it was their own admission beyond your pay grade as well? If so, then what is your pay grade?
2 Likes
I did a little research on my lunch break. While Coe and Prevot’s research shows that the magnetic field in that particular basalt deposit changed rapidly, there are thousands more basalt deposits that provide evidence of far slower changes. Also, there are plausible explanations for Coe and Prevot’s results other than a geomagnetic field reversal.
the results reported by Coe & Prevot include only a few out of hundreds or thousands of examples of field reversal measurements. The vast majority of the known examples would have required the entire reversal to take place while the lava flows were still hotter than the Curie temperature, or worse yet, argue against rapid reversal by recording what appear to be the intermediate stages of a single reversal event. Finally, others have shown that the evident rapid reversals described by Coe & Prevot may be explained by processes not related directly to those in the Earth’s core [27b], but rather by magnetic storm effects that may become significant at the surface of the Earth during a reversal, when the dipole field is relatively weak.
Even if we assume Coe and Prevot were correct in their conclusions regarding that one event, that does not imply that all geomagnetic reversals have occurred at the same rate. We need to evaluate the evidence for each event independently, wouldn’t you agree?
Not relevant. Moreover, I think Wise does not have the facts correct. He stated that they were rejected in 1988, but in fact their initial paper was accepted in 1988 and published in 1989:
“Evidence Suggesting Extremely Rapid Field Variation During a Geomagnetic Field Reversal” by R.S. Coe & M. Prevot. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 92(3-4): 292-298 (1989).
Then a few years later they published more:
“Revisiting the initial sites of geomagnetic field impulses during the Steens Mountain polarity reversal,” by Camps, Coe & Prevot. Geophysical Journal International, Volume 123, Issue 2, November 1995, pp 484–506 [EDIT: FIXED]
These publications lead me to believe that Wise was simply incorrect. It’s not a crime to occasionally have one’s facts wrong, of course. But really, LXX, you should not automatically accept what Wise says; double-checking is definitely warranted.
This is a quote from the head of the RATE project, and I provided a link. You are familiar with the RATE project, correct?
Moreover, it doesn’t enhance your reputation when you just say the evidence you don’t like is above your paygrade. Use it as an opportunity to learn more! You’ve got the time. 
Sure! Here it is again: Morton and Murphy
Best,
Chris
1 Like