Talk:Creation geophysics/Rapid-decay theory archive

Rapid-decay theory
Moved from User talk:Ec5618:

You placed a clean-up tag on this article. Please explain on the talk page what needs cleaning. I am removing the tag because it seems perfectly balanced to me - it describes the theory and then gives a rubbuttal reference. BlueValour 03:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Balance? I added a cleanup tag. Perhaps the cleanup tag isn't sufficient, but it is certainly valid.


 * I have added further rebuttal text that might meet your concerns. BlueValour 03:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The 'theory' is poorly described in any case. "It is based on the assumption that God created Earth out of water, with all of the molecules' spins aligned creating a substantial magnetic field." So, the Earth is water? And why am is it not explained that the point of this 'theory' is to explain the gradual decrease of the Earth's magnetic field, not the presence of that field? -- Ec5618 03:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * O my. I'm sorry, but that's hardly an inprovement. A factual statement about the age of the Earth, in an article about an alternate 'theory' just won't do. -- Ec5618 03:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I have done some rewriting to address them. BlueValour 04:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"proposes a mechanism ...generates a magnetic field"--- none of the existing citations do this. The "mechanism" one ref used for the for the *initial* field (God made it that way) does not consititue a mechanism is the normal sense of the word. The existing citations disagree about what rapid decay theory is, so clearly is means different things to different creationists...or please cite several different folks who work with the same assumptions.

"argued that this is caused by those atoms de-aligning over time" --- again if you read your refs you'll find that they believe the current magnetic field is due to electric currents not spinsTkirkman
 * Nice work, thank you. BlueValour 23:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources?
Do we have any secondary sources that have discussed this at all? JoshuaZ 02:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are plenty in the article. BlueValour 02:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * All the sources are primary sources making arguments one way or another. JoshuaZ 03:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)