Magnetic fields & Mitosis

If you go back in time, millions of years per say, the magnetic field of the earth would be so strong. There is no way life (plant or animal) could exist. Thoughts?

I know cw, I just thought it would get buried. The proof is all around. But some don't see it.

I didn't see it listed on your thread. What I like to call "Evil-illusion".

First time I'm hearing this. Interesting theory. Think I'll sit back and follow the debate that will ensue. (Please guys, no cut-and-pastes of long diatribes; nice concise posts for my short attention span.)

it's not that complicated.

Oh, believe me, there will be people on here who will make it complicated.

That assumes steady degreadation of the magnetic field, which is hardly the case. It ebbs and flows and switches. Real observation of real evidence has shown that.

The afore mentioned steady decay of things like Potassium/Argon however, have been demonstrated to be very steady. You're misapplying principles.

Hey Bmac, do you know if the church has a position on this. I don't really care one way or the other, but I am interested for curiousty sake.

CW is correct.

Cherrypick, this is the first I've heard of the magnetics theory. I'd really like to get more debate on this because I think it's interesting.

But I do know that Pope JPII has said about evolution in general that it is possible, is open to debate and exploration, and does not conflict with Catholic dogma.

Here, go to the magnetic fields part to see the various mistakes in Barnes' methodology and interpretation. His selective missing of facts and making up of others seems to show that he already had an answer when he started. He just needed to work the evidence to get there.I hate to keep pimping Talkorigins but it is so convenient.

Thanks Big Mac.

You misspelled invincible.

Yeah, and your address was wrong. You are applying the principles of steady nuclear decay to the principles of the magnetic field of the earth. That's like applying ballistics to nuclear weapons. "Five hundred pounds of dynamite will cause a crater 15 feet deep. By the same uniformitarian principle five hundred pounds of plutonium must also make a 15 feet deep crater".

The presupposistions of your argument rely on cross-application of nonrelated principles. The postsupposition that he is wrong is based on the actual principles and observation that also proves him incorrect. The magnetic field has already been observed to fluctuate to a great degree. That renders any attempt to extrapolate age based on its change over time impossible. It's not a presupposition.
It's a conclusion that his ideas are counter to observation.

To the contrary, radiometric dating has shown every time to very steady in rate of decay. Environmental factors affect it and can throw off a reading, but evidence of taint already disqualifies that sample anyway and it's never used. Unlike the magnetic field hypothesis radiometric dating concurs with observation. And it has confirmed it every time from many independent sources and is independently verifiable through astronomical observation.

You see the difference?

I don't suppose it would do any good to point out that radiocarbon dating isn't the only radiometric available, and others are even more accurate, right?

I thought not.

Carry on...

No difference,you're still using the"our assumptions are better than your assumptions" argument. No, the difference is that our conclusions coincide with observation. Your assumptions counter observation and uses poor logic. Let's run a little thought experiment to see if your idea holds up. The uniformitarian conclusion held by scientists is that gravity is always attractive. Now, based on the same uniformitarian assumption which you seem to think must hold true for all aspects of science, we must conclude that magnetism is always attractive. Is magnetism always attractive? If yes: The logic in your address is sound and I stand corrected.If no: Your conclusion is flawed. Uniform principles apply only to their respective fields* and are not universal.MP is right about that too. I never mentioned radiocarbon dating because that never has anything to do with the the age of the earth. Although it is funny to see someone try to use the self correcting nature of science as a condemnation. Although the fix it as we go approach seems to work well with, oh, say, computers. They weren't much in 1981 either. It's a testement to the usefulness of carbon dating that it has shown so much promise to go through 22 years of refinement since that piece.

*Get it, magnetism - fields? HA!