Originally posted by FMF
What I find funny is that I said "It has been refuted, apparently" - using the word "apparently" deliberately - to see if he would pounce on it to avoid addressing the refutation. And he did!
Okay, I will address the so-called refutation.
He says archaeomagnetic data show that the dipole field was about 20% weaker
than the present field 6,500 years ago and about 45% stronger than the present
field about 3000 years ago (McElhinny and Senanayake, 1982).
Is anyone actually stupid enough to believe someone measured the strength of
earth's magnetic field 6,500 years ago. It must have been one of Adam and
Eve's grandsons. This is all to stupid to make a good joke.
He does not like the conclusion that earth's magnetic field could be no more
than a few thousand years old so he says that a scientific handling of the
data requires that we don't play guessing games. Then he begins guessing how
to apply the data to make it work better for the evolutionists. Since the
best he can do is still 4.4 billion years less than he wants it to be, he
concludes by stating that it all amounts to pure speculation, which proves
nothing.
Then he criticizes Barnes for ignoring books that suggest that there may be
evidence of a magnetic field reversal called the dynamo theory. The fact that
someone now has a theory for an energy source that might cause a pole reversal
in no way proves such a reversal ever happened and therefore gives little or
no support to the dynamo theory. The dynamo theory is still pure speculation.
However, he concludes as if he has refuted everything by stating, I quote:
"We can safely relegate Barnes's magnetic field argument to the junk heap of
crackpot ideas. Barnes' work lacks the scientific integrity, competence, and
judgment one expects from a scientific work."
What a pitiful refutation.