It can be measured in rocks and ocean sediments. That’s how we know it’s a repeating cycle.
False! 100% false.
http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Reversals-of-Earths-Magnetic-Field-During-the-Genesis-Flood.pdf\
Excuse me, not false that the poles may have reversed, but false that it is evidence of not depleting or moving.
We know they move, hence the declination constant which we have to use to correct maps reorienting them to true north as magnetic north shifts.
Learn something.
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/declination.shtml
The magnetic field isn’t going away as long as we have our solid core surrounded by a flowing liquid core.
This isn’t theory, it’s measurable and shown to be a repeating cycle.
The alarmists are preying on ignorance and the fact we now can actually measure even minute changes in the field which wasn’t possible prior to the satellite age.
Well this is useless. I try to give you scientific research papers proving the point which you choose to ignore if you even read it (understand it).
You didn’t even read your own cited material.
Why would you make that claim?
Because when you get past the first couple of paragraphs they detail out exactly what I’ve told you repeatedly. Either you didn’t read it or didn’t understand what you read.
What you did not read was I stated earlier, the magnetic north is moving, and has been measured to be moving for centuries. It is accelerating in recent years, AND has been getting weaker throughout the past 200 years or so, even captured magnetic readings in new rock shows a stronger magnetic field in the past thousands of years. It has a half life about 1400 years. READ!!!
I read it and you’re just repeating what I have stated several times now.
Now continue reading. Once the poles flip the field re stabilizes just as it has through the previous cycles.
Which has never been observed. That is speculation or wishful thinking at best. THINK, Man!
No it isn’t, the previous cycles are again just as I said measurable because of the effect they had on the formation of rocks and ocean sediments.
Read it again:
http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Reversals-of-Earths-Magnetic-Field-During-the-Genesis-Flood.pdf
That isn’t a scientific source.
Blimey here’s a turn-up for the book, my agreeing with TWR. I often use that very expression myself as and when it’s in context. Although I don’t use ‘environment’, I say nature is in a constant state of flux. It’s usually when I discuss the ozone layer.
What IS a scientific resource? Is research by scientists a scientific resource in your mind?
It is research without an agenda.
Most of what he presents as “Creation Science” is refuted by the known facts produced by actual scientific research.
Read the footnotes of the research which confirms the conclusions.
Isn’t all scientific speculation biased? Aren’t all scientists prejudiced?
EVOLUTION AND LONG AGES WILL SOON BE TOSSED INTO THE ASH HEAP OF HISTORY AS THE GREATEST HOAX ATTEMPTED. (oops caps lock, but adds emphasis)
1 Like
No, good science has no bias at all and the first premise of scientists is to challenge their own biases and conclusions.
See skeptical inquiry.
Humans have biases, and se3cular scientists have predetermined outcomes they are looking for. Long ages hypotheses is based on circular reasoning. “The fossil is x years old because it was found in z rock layer which is x years old because this fossil was found in that layer.”
Yet another series of false statements.
We know the relative ages of sediments by dating them.
We know what fossils turn up regularly at various date levels.
Identify the fossil and you have a good approximation of the age of the deposit.
Belive it or not it’s entirely possible to conduct science without letting your biases affect your work.
As a part of my job I evaluate shootings, both police and civilian shootings to the tune of hundreds per year.
I have never been wrong about the outcome of a case because I don’t let my emotions or biases affect how I see them. I simply take the facts and the law for what they are and base my conclusions on how the facts lay out.