do JWs believe in dinosaurs? (page 11)

gringojj

Hibiscus why are you not answering happy guys questions so long ago?

hibiscusfire

grin: Hib why havent you answered happy guys questions? Who is happyguy? HF

hibiscusfire

AlanF:

T-Rexes existed in England until just a few hundred years ago. You don't believe it? The monster Grendel in the legend of Beowulf was a T-Rex!

What are you talking about?

Daunt

He's showing you an example of a bold baseless claim which you have been saying ever since you joined this board.

DannyBloem

Hibiscus you give the anewer already yourself in your explanation, on the following. There is natural variation in the earth magnetic field:

Danny: Also can you give more data about that magnetic change you talking about, and why that is not normal. Well first of all evidence that the earth-sun system was designed by God far outweighs any possibility that it all just happened to come together by mere chance. The core is a ball of iron 6960 kilometres across, at a temperature of more than 5000 °C. The outer 2260 kilometres are liquid, the inner part is squeezed solid. Convection roils the outer portion of the core, as cooler, denser fluid sinks under the pull of gravity, while hotter, less dense liquid rises to take its place. Earth's field has a well-known penchant for reversing its poles every now and then. These reversals are recorded in the magnetism of ancient rocks. And measurements of the field show that its strength is decreasing at the moment. The Earth will be hit by much more radiation than it currently receives. Earth’s magnetic strength has declined 6% in the last 150 years

If the magnetic field of the Earth suddenly changed, and this DOES happen naturally every 250,000 years or so, the consequences would be fascinating. For life, we can see from the fossil record that the past field changes had no significant effect on living organisms. This is most curious because the field reversal ( North magnetic pole shifting to antarctica and the South magnetic pole shifting to the arctic region in the Northern Hemisphere) one might expect the field to go to zero strength for a century or so. This would let cosmic rays freely penetrate to the Earth's surface and cause mutations. This seems not to have had much effect in the past, so we probably don't really know what is going on during these field reversals. There have been a dozen of them over the last few million years, documented in the rock which has emerged and solidified along the mid-Atlantic Ridge where continental plates are slowly separating. These epochs form parallel bands all long the ridge where the rock has stored a fossilized image of the local orientation of the Earth's magnetic field for the last few million years.

Magnetic field wandering would let the aurora borealis occur at any latitude, but other than that there would be no noticeable effects other than changes in the amount of cosmic rays that penetrate to the ground. Even this effect is minimal because we can visit the Arctic and Antarctic and only receive a slight increase in cosmic rays. So long as the strength of the field remains high during this field wandering event, the effects should be pretty benign.

The Earth's magnetic field is believed to be generated by the rotation of the Earth's molten iron-nickel core. The period of field reversal is determined by the rotation rate of the core and its electrical conductivity. If you were to change either one of these, the field orientation, strength and '250,000 year cycle' would be increased or decreased. We also know from studies of the Sun's magnetic dynamo, that this phenomenon can change abruptly as it did during the 'Little Ice Age' on the Earth a few hundred years ago. There were no sunspots observed on the Sun for 50 years or so, then rather abruptly, the familiar 11-year cycle started-up over the course of a few decades. A similar 'chaotic' phenomenon may occur with the Earth 'suddenly' loosing its magnetic field for a few million years. Already, geophysicists have begun to notice a decline in the strength of the Earth's magnetic field, suggesting that the next field reversal epoch may be about to start. It may, however, take a long time to get here.

DannyBloem

Hibiscus,

In this part that you copied, there is nothing of any proof that the earth is young. It just explains what salinity is. I know what it is.
your explanation:

The salinity of the sea water:
Sea water is about a 3.49% solution of salt , or about 96.5% freshwater. The more saline, the denser the sea water .
As the range of salt concentration varies from about 3.2 to 3.8%, oceanographers, who refer to salt content as ' salinity ', express salt concentration as parts per thousand, making 34.9 parts-per-thousand (ppt) the average salinity.
Salinity changes the properties of water from that of pure water. As sea water evaporates the salt remains behind , only the freshwater is transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere, hence regions of excess evaporation , such as the subtropics tend to become salty, while the areas of excess rainfall become fresher .
The tropical belt, or Inter Tropical Convergence Zone is such an area. The ocean circulation acts to move lower salinity sea water into evaporative regions, and more saline water into humid regions , this is part of the hydrological cycle . The relative freshness of the Pacific Ocean surface water stands out.
Excess evaporation of the Atlantic and excess precipitation of the Pacific are balanced to some measure by an atmospheric flux of water vapor over Central America, amounting to 0.35 Sv. The Arctic Sea is very fresh, due to the enormous amount of river water that drains into it from the northern continents. The effects of ocean circulation are seen in the transfer of saline surface water into the northern North Atlantic . Cooling of this water leads to sinking and the formation of North Atlantic Deep Water .
In the polar regions sea water freezes . The resulting ice contains only part of the sea water salt, about 0.5% (5 ppt), hence ice formation like evaporation, concentrates salt in the remaining body of sea water. This causes very dense water (cold and salty), which in some regions in the Southern Ocean leads to deep reaching convection (that is spontaneous sinking of heavy water), called Antarctic Bottom water .
The very low salinity of the Arctic prohibits the development of deep reaching convection. Southern ocean ice exhibits lots of seasonal variability, and is generally only 0.5 meters thick. There is evidence of greater amount of vertical overturning (sinking of heavy, dense water and rising of lighter water) in the southern Ocean, as deep water upwells to be replaced by sinking cold polar water.
In sharp contrast is the Arctic sea where the sea ice is usually about 2 to 3 meters thick with a lesser amount of seasonality, and a water column which is very stratified (low density residing above high density).
There is some evidence that global warming is reducing the area of year round sea ice in Arctic, but not (yet?) within the Southern Ocean
.

so, what do you want to say: that the earth is young. It does not show. Salts comes into the ocean, that can be measured. A portion of that salt is used by organisms in the sea (some salts). Another part becomes sediment. Maybe the sea is getting more salty, but if you want to prove your point, the above quote is not a prove for a young earth at all. It is just the opposite.
If you want to prove it, do your math, and show me the figures, and I will believe you.

Danny

hibiscusfire

Danny:

so, what do you want to say: that the earth is young. It does not show. Salts comes into the ocean, that can be measured. A portion of that salt is used by organisms in the sea (some salts). Another part becomes sediment. Maybe the sea is getting more salty, but if you want to prove your point, the above quote is not a prove for a young earth at all. It is just the opposite.

If you want to prove it, do your math, and show me the figures, and I will believe you.

Well if the earth was so many billions and millions of years old then:

Not enough sodium in the sea !!!

The oceans are getting saltier. If they are billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they were now.

Oil underground!

The rock encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years.

Erosion

The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years, destroying all old fossils. (American Science Vol 56 p356-374)
Hib

Daunt

I'm not going to try to dispute that because it's pointless. But I just feel it's funny that you kind of supported our claim in this. The seas are very very VERY salty and it takes many many many (more than your bible teaches time a thousand) millenia to do this. Yet you still used it to support your case.

DannyBloem

Hibiscus,

Just some data:

A brief look at some data from the United States will serve to illustrate the point. The average continental height of the United States is 623 meters above sea level and the estimated average erosion rate is 6.1 cm/1,000 years.

But this is just a average. Some places have much more erotion then others.

Current rates of mountain uplift have been directly measured and are shown to vary from mountain range to mountain range. For example, the rate of uplift for the Swiss Alps is about 100-150 cm/1000 years while the Rocky Mountains in North America rise at the rate of 100-1000 cm/1000 years.

So the uplift is more then the erosion. But erosion in mountains is a lot higher also then average. So there is no reason to suspect that all land must be eroded away in 6000 years.

But evidence of the older universe is so overwhelming:

Dendrochronology, the dating of trees goes back over 9,000 years. With lake varies tree rings can be correlated back 40,000 years.

Consider the other things I have already written. Light from far stars etc.

Danny

hibiscusfire

Danny:

Consider the other things I have already written. Light from far stars etc

It is a fact that time passes on the Earth at a different rate than it does in space.
It is also a fact that scripture teaches that "God stretcheth out the heavens".
Stars in general are quite far away and many at huge distances where the light that currently is emitteded would take far longer than 6000 years to get here.

However if God "stretched out the heavens" as He said He did, and this was done in less than 6 Earth days, then any light rays in transit would be able to continue to get to the Earth in a continuous manner. It would be interesting to model such a process using the equations of general relativity to see if the idea would hold water.

Stranger things have been modeled and designed to fit at least some aspects of reality. The Big Bang is a perfect example.

do JWs believe in dinosaurs?

The salinity of the sea water:

Share this