Paleontologist Explains What The Fossils Really Say

[james bond]

But you haven't explained HOW a flood could affect the Earth's magnetic field? We have floods every year but, so far as I know, they show ZERO effect.

Neither have you. Did you even look for an evolutionary paper to explain it?

Moreover, you didn't read the paper I linked which points out testable evidence with a convection sphere. What's not clear are the numerous past reversals which are still being discussed.

The global flood explains how the layers with magnetized rocks and the fossils that we discuss were laid down in a short period of time, around one year. The creation scientists have Occam's Razor on their side.

"
Abstract
Strong convection in the Earth’s core during the Deluge would rapidly reverse the magnetic field
while the fossil layers were being laid down. Afterwards the field would fluctuate for several thousand
years and then begin decaying steadily. This young-earth model explains the paleomagnetic and
archeomagnetic evidence better than old-earth “dynamic” theories do."
...

"Basic Physical Constraints
Since the field reversals are recorded in the fossil
strata, the reversals must have happened when
the strata were being laid down. Most young-earth
creationists (including myself) are convinced that the
Genesis Flood produced most of the fossil layers in
a single year. Therefore, since roughly 50 reversals
are recorded in the rocks, our model must average
about one reversal per week (one full cycle every two
weeks). Such changes are very rapid compared to the
ponderous thousand-year or million-year timescales
usually imagined for large changes in the field. If
the reversals were indeed rapid, we can immediately
deduce several things about the reversal mechanism
and conditions during the Flood"

...

"young-earth creationists have
accumulated a lot of evidence that the earth is much
younger than millions of years. Such a short timescale
suggests that planetary magnetic fields could just be
remnants of their original fields at creation, that the
fields are essentially caused by freely decaying electric
currents in the conductive cores of the planets. The
predominantly dipole (two poles, north and south)
shape of the earth’s field and its apparent exponential
(constant percent per year) decay for the last 150 years
(Figure 1) (Barnes, 1973, pp. 222–230; Humphreys,
1983, pp. 89–94) are just what nineteenth-century
theorists predicted for free decay in a conducting
sphere (Lamb, 1883, pp. 519–549). Moreover, the
observed decay rate gives a reasonable value for the
electrical conductivity of the earth’s core, 40,000
mhos/meter (Barnes, p. 228). This value agrees with
estimates of the conductivity of likely core materials
at core temperatures and pressures (Stacey, 1967,
pp. 204–206).

The simplicity of the free-decay theory is an
advantage over the complexity of the “dynamo”
theories which advocates of an old earth must invoke
to explain the field. Unfortunately, the free-decay
theory as it stands now does not explain numerous
past reversals. One would think that young-earth
creationists would try to modify the free-decay theory;"

 

[Wuwei]

Neither have you. Did you even look for an evolutionary paper to explain it?

Moreover, you didn't read the paper I linked which points out testable evidence with a convection sphere. What's not clear are the numerous past reversals which are still being discussed.

The global flood explains how the layers with magnetized rocks and the fossils that we discuss were laid down in a short period of time, around one year. The creation scientists have Occam's Razor on their side.

"
Abstract
Strong convection in the Earth’s core during the Deluge would rapidly reverse the magnetic field
while the fossil layers were being laid down. Afterwards the field would fluctuate for several thousand
years and then begin decaying steadily. This young-earth model explains the paleomagnetic and
archeomagnetic evidence better than old-earth “dynamic” theories do."
...

"Basic Physical Constraints
Since the field reversals are recorded in the fossil
strata, the reversals must have happened when
the strata were being laid down. Most young-earth
creationists (including myself) are convinced that the
Genesis Flood produced most of the fossil layers in
a single year. Therefore, since roughly 50 reversals
are recorded in the rocks, our model must average
about one reversal per week (one full cycle every two
weeks). Such changes are very rapid compared to the
ponderous thousand-year or million-year timescales
usually imagined for large changes in the field. If
the reversals were indeed rapid, we can immediately
deduce several things about the reversal mechanism
and conditions during the Flood"

...

"young-earth creationists have
accumulated a lot of evidence that the earth is much
younger than millions of years. Such a short timescale
suggests that planetary magnetic fields could just be
remnants of their original fields at creation, that the
fields are essentially caused by freely decaying electric
currents in the conductive cores of the planets. The
predominantly dipole (two poles, north and south)
shape of the earth’s field and its apparent exponential
(constant percent per year) decay for the last 150 years
(Figure 1) (Barnes, 1973, pp. 222–230; Humphreys,
1983, pp. 89–94) are just what nineteenth-century
theorists predicted for free decay in a conducting
sphere (Lamb, 1883, pp. 519–549). Moreover, the
observed decay rate gives a reasonable value for the
electrical conductivity of the earth’s core, 40,000
mhos/meter (Barnes, p. 228). This value agrees with
estimates of the conductivity of likely core materials
at core temperatures and pressures (Stacey, 1967,
pp. 204–206).

The simplicity of the free-decay theory is an
advantage over the complexity of the “dynamo”
theories which advocates of an old earth must invoke
to explain the field. Unfortunately, the free-decay
theory as it stands now does not explain numerous
past reversals. One would think that young-earth
creationists would try to modify the free-decay theory;"

That is all circular logic. It does not prove anything about a young earth.
.

 

[james bond]

That is all circular logic. It does not prove anything about a young earth.
.

Nyet. You just don't get the model. The global flood and its effects took place around a year's time. The young Earth is to counter atheist scientists arguments that the Earth's layers, fossils, reversals in magnetic fields, etc. took place within millions of years time and that the main thing is about location and not time. How can you show the layers took millions of years to form when our model shows it happens very fast?

 

[Wuwei]

Nyet. You just don't get the model. The global flood and its effects took place around a year's time. The young Earth is to counter atheist scientists arguments that the Earth's layers, fossils, reversals in magnetic fields, etc. took place within millions of years time and that the main thing is about location and not time. How can you show the layers took millions of years to form when our model shows it happens very fast?

You have not given a model. You only gave opinion. A physical model must be more detailed than just a paragraph. You must show how much water is needed to cover all the mountains. And show how it got back to where it came from.

This source is supposed to tell where the flood water came from.

Drowned from below

Water and other material has come out of the earth

creation.com

That creation.com source references a science paper for the information they rely on. It states.

Deep waters

Santa Cruz, California DEEP inside the Earth, the pressure is excruciating. Squeezed into strange shapes and forms, the rocks are so hot that they crawl like super-thick treacle. It is an inferno worthy of Dante, but it also contains something surprising. What's the last thing you would expect...

www.newscientist.com

But this water is not a series of immense seas. Rather, it is scattered in droplets, some as small as a single molecule, with most trapped inside crystal lattices of rare minerals that only form under intense pressures. How much there is down there is still fiercely debated.​

Water that is trapped in the earth is not all that readily available. What strains the physical reality even more is the flood receding process -- of getting the water 400 kilometers back down into the mantel as we see it today -- dispersed and locked inside crystal lattices.

Where is a detailed physical model for how dispersed water droplets can coagulate and rise, and how receding flood water could force it's way back down 400 kilometers and disperse and permeate mineral lattice structures?
.

 

[james bond]

That is all circular logic. It does not prove anything about a young earth.

You keep ignoring that I have the Bible, creation science and that science backs up the Bible as well as my informed opinion in my posts. My model is simple, understandable and testable with the sphere.

The Tenets of Creationism

Creationism can be studied and taught in any of three basic forms, as follows: (1) Scientific creationism (no reliance on Biblical revelation, utilizing only scientific data to support and...

www.icr.org

OTOH, you can't even produce a paper nor answer my questions. It shows that all you have are lies and uninformed opinion.

What do I call your posts full of uninformed opinions? It's crybabyism lmao.

 

[james bond]

You know that sign I keep posting? It shows there are levels of pain. It didn't hit me, but I suppose injured is after hurt. However, I've learned that injured isn't in the book, so it stops at hurt mwahaha...

"
Injured vs Hurt


The terms “being injured” and “being hurt” are very different from each other. Being hurt means “having a sensation of pain, physically or mentally” while “injured” implies “to cause or do any kind of harm, such as a tear, severe sprain, etc.”
Taking the example of an athlete, he can play or participate in a tournament when he is hurt. But if he is injured, he must abstain from such events. He must take ample rest and treatment for healing. An injury incurs intense bodily pain and needs treatment for recovering. The part of the body undergoes permanent change where an injury occurs. That part may heal and the player may become fit, but it never returns to its original condition. An injury is associated with sports."

Difference Between Injured and Hurt

Injured vs Hurt The terms “being injured” and “being hurt” are very different from each other. Being hurt means “having a sensation of pain, physically or mentally” while “injured” implies “to cause or do any

www.differencebetween.net

 

[Wuwei]

My model is simple, understandable and testable with the sphere.

You still haven't cited a source for a model that includes the physics and chemistry of how dispersed water can consolidate; travel 400 Km to the surface; and then recede back into the mantle; and disperse and permeate mineral lattice structures. That is what a science model demands. If that can't be done then it isn't science.

OTOH, you can't even produce a paper nor answer my questions. It shows that all you have are lies and uninformed opinion.

Your other questions have already been answered by many others.
.

 

[g5000]

Dr Gunther Bechly says Darwin was wrong

​

Gunter Bechly is an "Intelligent Design" creationist.

 

[alang1216]

Neither have you. Did you even look for an evolutionary paper to explain it?

It is your assertion that a flood could affect the Earth's magnetic field, not mine and not science's so there are no papers anywhere to back your claim. You make the claim, you supply the evidence.

Moreover, you didn't read the paper I linked which points out testable evidence with a convection sphere. What's not clear are the numerous past reversals which are still being discussed.

The global flood explains how the layers with magnetized rocks and the fossils that we discuss were laid down in a short period of time, around one year. The creation scientists have Occam's Razor on their side.

Hardly. The paper says there was one reversal per week during the flood. There hasn't been another in recorded history. Why?

Abstract
Strong convection in the Earth’s core during the Deluge would rapidly reverse the magnetic field
while the fossil layers were being laid down. Afterwards the field would fluctuate for several thousand
years and then begin decaying steadily. This young-earth model explains the paleomagnetic and
archeomagnetic evidence better than old-earth “dynamic” theories do.

Why was the convection suddenly stronger? You can't claim science backs up the Bible and also claim a supernatural mechanism.

Curious that the fossil assemblages are very different in the different layers?

Your model would have to explain, using only natural laws, how the Atlantic Ocean was created during the flood.

 

[james bond]

You still haven't cited a source for a model that includes the physics and chemistry of how dispersed water can consolidate; travel 400 Km to the surface; and then recede back into the mantle; and disperse and permeate mineral lattice structures. That is what a science model demands. If that can't be done then it isn't science.

Your other questions have already been answered by many others.
.

Sad. You continue to be ignorant on purpose. It is I who have answered as well as other believers here and who have provided their papers as evidence. You are the typical evolutionist who continue to believe in nothing lies which produces fake papers. I already showed how these papers don't really say there was a common ancestor nor birds from dinosaurs. You and the atheists here are such fools.

 

[james bond]

It is your assertion that a flood could affect the Earth's magnetic field, not mine and not science's so there are no papers anywhere to back your claim. You make the claim, you supply the evidence.


Hardly. The paper says there was one reversal per week during the flood. There hasn't been another in recorded history. Why?


Why was the convection suddenly stronger? You can't claim science backs up the Bible and also claim a supernatural mechanism.

Curious that the fossil assemblages are very different in the different layers?

Your model would have to explain, using only natural laws, how the Atlantic Ocean was created during the flood.

I already posted the paper from Dr. Humphreys and this is the second time you admitted that you cannot read complex scientific papers.

The paper says there was one reversal per week and when all the Earth's fossil layers were formed.

Here's another paper to help answer your questions -- https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Hypercanes-following-the-Genesis-Flood.pdf.

Why can the creationists answer their opponent's questions, but the evolutionists still sit in doo doo? The atheists and evos are disgusting and smelly.

 

[alang1216]

I already posted the paper from Dr. Humphreys and this is the second time you admitted that you cannot read complex scientific papers.

When exactly did I say that? These hardly qualify as complex scientific papers, they are pure speculations.

The paper says there was one reversal per week and when all the Earth's fossil layers were formed.

That doesn't fit with what we see with our own eyes. How does one flood create thousands of individual layers? One really thick layer maybe but that is not what we find.

 

[james bond]

When exactly did I say that? These hardly qualify as complex scientific papers, they are pure speculations.


That doesn't fit with what we see with our own eyes. How does one flood create thousands of individual layers? One really thick layer maybe but that is not what we find.

Now, you're contradicting yourself.

First, I've discovered that atheist science papers on evolution doesn't really conclude anything. They infer this and they infer that and the press the and lay people just lap it up as a done deal such as birds from dinosaurs and humans from monkeys.

Second, I presented the papers for creation. We see the global flood happened and what happened during that one year. That limestone fossils didn't just walk up by itself to the top of Mt. Everest nor decide to paint the cliffs of Dover white lol. Creationists have papers and hard evidence. If you had them, then you would've presented them already and be shaking your finger at me. Instead, I give you .

 

[alang1216]

Now, you're contradicting yourself.

First, I've discovered that atheist science papers on evolution doesn't really conclude anything. They infer this and they infer that and the press the and lay people just lap it up as a done deal such as birds from dinosaurs and humans from monkeys.

Second, I presented the papers for creation. We see the global flood happened and what happened during that one year. That limestone fossils didn't just walk up by itself to the top of Mt. Everest nor decide to paint the cliffs of Dover white lol. Creationists have papers and hard evidence. If you had them, then you would've presented them already and be shaking your finger at me. Instead, I give you .

Is it your position that the Flood was a purely natural event with no supernatural assistance?

 

[Wuwei]

Sad. You continue to be ignorant on purpose. It is I who have answered as well as other believers here and who have provided their papers as evidence. You are the typical evolutionist who continue to believe in nothing lies which produces fake papers. I already showed how these papers don't really say there was a common ancestor nor birds from dinosaurs. You and the atheists here are such fools.

My post had nothing to do with evolution. It was that no creationist has shown that the fluid mechanics of Noah's flood has any science supporting it.

You have not cited a source for the physics and chemistry of how deep and dispersed water can consolidate; travel 400 Km to the surface; cover the mountain tops; and then recede back into the mantle; and disperse and permeate mineral lattice structures. That is what a science model demands. If that can't be done then it isn't science.
.

 

[james bond]

Is it your position that the Flood was a purely natural event with no supernatural assistance?

The Bible states that the global flood was supernatural as all humans and animals died except for those chosen by Noah to live. How can you even think it was natural? Even though you think supernatural events are like beginning of the universe and abiogenesis. The latter is impossible and not science.

 

[james bond]

My post had nothing to do with evolution. It was that no creationist has shown that the fluid mechanics of Noah's flood has any science supporting it.

You have not cited a source for the physics and chemistry of how deep and dispersed water can consolidate; travel 400 Km to the surface; cover the mountain tops; and then recede back into the mantle; and disperse and permeate mineral lattice structures. That is what a science model demands. If that can't be done then it isn't science.
.

I gave you the scientific papers for the global flood and now you're just making excuses as you were embarrassed as you couldn't produce papers nor models of birds from dinosaurs and humans' common ancestor that I asked for. What a maroon lol.

 

[Wuwei]

I gave you the scientific papers for the global flood and now you're just making excuses as you were embarrassed as you couldn't produce papers nor models of birds from dinosaurs and humans' common ancestor that I asked for. What a maroon lol.

I read and commented on the papers in post #484. You keep stalling on Noah's flood. I see nobody has an answer for the physics and chemistry of how deep and dispersed water can consolidate; travel 400 Km to the surface; cover the mountain tops; and then recede back into the mantle; and disperse and permeate mineral lattice structures.

As you obviously know by now there is no science to explain it. So you can only explain it as a miracle. That's OK. Many people including some of my relatives believe in the literal interpretation of the bible and miracles. These people don't confuse it with science. However many scientists who are Christians accept the Bible as allegories and stories. The problem comes when anyone says that the Bible is consistent with science.
.

 

[alang1216]

The Bible states that the global flood was supernatural as all humans and animals died except for those chosen by Noah to live. How can you even think it was natural? Even though you think supernatural events are like beginning of the universe and abiogenesis. The latter is impossible and not science.

You should stop claiming that science supports the Bible since science deals only with the natural world, not the supernatural one. If the Flood were a supernatural event it would be, by definition, outside the realm of science. You could claim that all the fossils were laid down in about a year and science can't say you're wrong because science doesn't deal with the supernatural. On the other hand, science also can't support the claim that all the fossils were laid down in about a year since there is no known mechanism for such supernatural actions.

 

[james bond]

I read and commented on the papers in post #484. You keep stalling on Noah's flood. I see nobody has an answer for the physics and chemistry of how deep and dispersed water can consolidate; travel 400 Km to the surface; cover the mountain tops; and then recede back into the mantle; and disperse and permeate mineral lattice structures.

As you obviously know by now there is no science to explain it. So you can only explain it as a miracle. That's OK. Many people including some of my relatives believe in the literal interpretation of the bible and miracles. These people don't confuse it with science. However many scientists who are Christians accept the Bible as allegories and stories. The problem comes when anyone says that the Bible is consistent with science.
.

What a liar. Of course, science backs up the Bible as I posted an youtube on the points and my hundreds of posts here. I'm sick of the disgusting, dirty and lying atheists and evolutionists here with their no scientific papers for dinosaurs to birds nor ape-human evolution. In fact, I already exposed that as these fake papers just make allusions to it and not any conclusions. Heck, I could do that if someone paid me from the time I was a university student. You can't even provide your credentials. It must be lower level.

I already posted the source of Dr. Russel Humphreys and here's another paper he wrote on the global flood model -- Catastrophic plate tectonics: A global Flood model of earth history.

OTOH, you dirty weasel of a science forum member, where are your science papers? You should be able to produce them easily. How about the paper that convinced you that you can discuss evolution? I just laugh trying to write this as you're way out of your league.