The only difference is that I'm predicting it would take millions of years.
Real Science Friday: What technologies needed Darwin or an old earth?
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Sounds interesting. Show us your numbers.
Has to be. The evidence shows the field increases and decreases in strength over time. Unless you think magnetism fairies are switching a giant battery off and on, it has to be generated.
Show us your alternative and the evidence for it.
Barbarian observes:
Where does the energy from all this come? The decay of radioactive elements in the core. This sets up convection currents in the mantle and the Coriolis effect then produces a chaotic movement something like that in the atmosphere.
Movement of magnetic material past a conductor does.
Horsefeathers. Take a rare earth magnet about the size of a nickel. Drop it down a length of thick-walled copper pipe of slightly greater diameter. You'll get a surprise.
If you think so, you have no idea how a dynamo works.
3. Every simulation of the system produces currents of liquid iron, and that is sufficient to cause magnetic fields. The currents in the models also produce fields that look like those of Earth.
Would you like to see the evidence for this again?
Not odd at all. You just consistently fail to respond honestly to what is said.
Try reading again. :thumb:
Alate_One
Well-known member
Yes, but the assumption was it didn't happen much between higher organisms. Apparently it does happen more often than was previously thought, though it is still relatively rare. The fact we can tell the difference between HGT and descent tells you that one doesn't "override" evidence for the other.
Barbarian notes that lateral gene transfer has been long known:
Very odd that an "evolutionist" wouldn't have known this. PubMed has um...Two hundred and seventy pages of hits for "lateral gene transfer."
There are 62 pages for "horizontal gene transfer" and "vertebrates." The oldest abstract that refers directly to hgt in vertebrates dates from 1987, about, um, just shy of a quarter century ago.
As I said, very strange that this "evolutionist" didn't know it. Very strange, indeed.
About 4 years ago, there was an article about it in Nature, so it's not just an obscure journal. Or is this an example of recycling old news, again?
Very odd that an "evolutionist" wouldn't have known this. PubMed has um...Two hundred and seventy pages of hits for "lateral gene transfer."
There are 62 pages for "horizontal gene transfer" and "vertebrates." The oldest abstract that refers directly to hgt in vertebrates dates from 1987, about, um, just shy of a quarter century ago.
As I said, very strange that this "evolutionist" didn't know it. Very strange, indeed.
About 4 years ago, there was an article about it in Nature, so it's not just an obscure journal. Or is this an example of recycling old news, again?
Barbarian. You asked me why the dates given by different kinds of decay were all consistent after i gave the reason for consistency among varying half lifes of the same decay mode. The reasoning is the same for the consistency among differing decay modes except the consistency is not as great as that as among the same type of decay. Given a large enough sample of radio dates, The differences among dates between different decay modes i s larger than difference among dates for the same decay mode given you are using the same rock sample in each case.
Now, that's interesting. Show us that one.
Sounds like you might consider a draw – we both lose. If I give up on saying the Jovian moons are billions of years old, you will do likewise on saying they are less than ten-thousand years old? Means my science is wrong, and your literal Genesis is too?
Thanks for recognising and fixing your error. :thumb:
Tyrathca
New member
Based on what? I sincerely doubt you were capable of such calculations and had access to software and processing power capable of modelling the orbits of the jovian system and the effects you predict over such a time frame. So who did the maths?
-----------------------------------------------
If only we could also expect the same from you too...
I can show you thousands of my posts that are on topic, relevant and present something of interest. I challenge you to find just one post from Jukia in a thread I am in that is on topic, relevant and not a lame little quip. :thumb:
Barbarian observes:
There are 62 pages for "horizontal gene transfer" and "vertebrates." The oldest abstract that refers directly to hgt in vertebrates dates from 1987, about, um, just shy of a quarter century ago.
Actually, eukaryotes are higher organisms. I just figured that you'd certainly be willing to concede vertebrates are. Still, it's odd that your "evolutionist" was 25 years behind on his reading, um?
There are 62 pages for "horizontal gene transfer" and "vertebrates." The oldest abstract that refers directly to hgt in vertebrates dates from 1987, about, um, just shy of a quarter century ago.
Actually, eukaryotes are higher organisms. I just figured that you'd certainly be willing to concede vertebrates are. Still, it's odd that your "evolutionist" was 25 years behind on his reading, um?
some other dude
New member
When he says "um" it means his brain's gone on vacation again. 
Wow. He says that a lot!When he says "um" it means his brain's gone on vacation again.
Alate_One
Well-known member
When he says "um" it means his brain's gone on vacation again.
You think this because yours is permanently on vacation . . . .
And you make pointless posts 90% of the time . . . and?
Would either of you like to discuss the actual issues at hand?
Anyone know if Io is actually thought to be left over from the initial formation of the solar system or if it was a later capture?
And frankly what does IO have to do with technologies that require and old earth?
Don't worry about Sot. He's just following me around, trying to get even for past wrongs he thinks the evil Barbarian has done to him.
And Stipe, when he's cornered, gets mean and abusive. No surprise there, either. Let them vent. It does no harm.
But isn't it odd that the "evolutionist" was unaware of the data almost a quarter-century old? Very odd, um?
And Stipe, when he's cornered, gets mean and abusive. No surprise there, either. Let them vent. It does no harm.
But isn't it odd that the "evolutionist" was unaware of the data almost a quarter-century old? Very odd, um?
- Status