Earth's Magnetic Field Is Weakening And Not A Dynamo.

[USincognito]

I never made any claims that ToE (biology) and evolutionary thinking were the same. The evolution.berkeley.edu website makes it clear. What falls into today's evolutionary thinking and ToE is genetic modification and GMO foods. I use evolution to argue against GMO foods which is a topic for another day.

Please, just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. There is no such thing as "evolutionary thinking" and genetic modification (and artificial selection) is the exact opposite of evolution.

 

[USincognito]

Igneous layes get their magnets reversed.

Which is why we know the earth is at least millions of years old.

Also, when we have earthquakes, we know today that the ground liquefies.

That only happens with certain types of soil. It doesn't happen to rock and it doesn't actually turn into a liquid. It just behaves in the manner of a liquid.

That could cause magnetic reversals, too.

Wet, sandy soil churning during an earthquake does not cause magnetic reversals.

Food for thought. We've lived in a world where we always had magnetic N. It's hard for me to picture a bizarro world where our compasses are reversed.

During the reversal, it's going to a be mess. But afterwards, the only real difference is compasses will point south instead of north.

 

[jamesbond007]

Actually, no. Not usually about science.

Ha ha. Where is your experiment to demonstrate polarity reversal? Then we have something to discuss.

 

[jamesbond007]

You would find it worthwhile to get some introductory books on geology, since you have an obvious interest in the subject. A little bit of study could remove some of your misunderstandings. In the meantime:
1. Igneous layers do not get their magnets reversed. As an igneous rocks cools below the Curie temperature certain minerals, most commonly magnetite, adopt the orientation of the local field. Since this local field changes over time any igneous layers that form after the next global reversal will have their induced magnetisation the opposite of the older layer.
2. The liquefaction of the ground has nothing whatsoever to do the magnetic field. It relates to packing geometry of certains sediments that can be altered when subject to the sort of vibration present during earthquakes.

Sure they do. The simple experiment demonstrated that they do. Igneous layers below the seafloor are hotter than the Curie temperature. We get the magnetite showing the nice patterns of NSNS or NSSN whether it's aligned N-S or E-W. Pole reversal had nothing to do with it. Next, in the same breath you introduce changes over time (assuming thousands of years) which is BS. What we have is magnetic reversal present in the cooling.

What you are discussing is secular or atheist geology and atheists are usually wrong.

I pose the same question to you. Where is the demonstration of pole reversal? How can we apply it to the Earth's magnetic field (the devil is in the details here)? Then we'll have more to discuss.

Some condescension, too. Why don't you read the Bible sometime? I've decided to incorporate it into my own life by reading daily .

 

[jamesbond007]

I found another update for creation science at creation.com.

The Aurora Borealis (Northern Lights). This is caused by charged particles from space striking the earth’s atmosphere. These particles have been deflected towards the poles by the presence of the earth’s magnetic field (which also diverts many such particles harmlessly into space).
Credit: photo Wikipedia.org

"The earth has a magnetic field pointing almost north-south—only 11.5° off. This is an excellent design feature of our planet: it enables navigation by compasses, and it also shields us from dangerous charged particles from the sun. It is also powerful evidence that the earth must be as young as the Bible teaches.

In the 1970s, the creationist physics professor Dr Thomas Barnes noted that measurements since 1835 have shown that the field is decaying at 5% per century 1 (also, archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than today 2) Barnes, the author of a well-regarded electromagnetism textbook, proposed that the earth’s magnetic field was caused by a decaying electric current in the earth’s metallic core (see side note). Barnes calculated that the current could not have been decaying for more than 10,000 years, or else its original strength would have been large enough to melt the earth. So the earth must be younger than that."

...

"If the liquid flowed upwards (due to convection—hot fluids rise, cold fluids sink) this could sometimes make the field reverse quickly. 4"

1 ESSA Technical Report, IER 46-IES 1, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, 1967.

2 The Earth’s Magnetic Field, Academic Press, London, pp. 101–106, 1983.

3 Foundations of Electricity and Magnetism, 3rd ed., El Paso, Texas, 1977."

4 Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, 2:113–126, 1986. The moving conductive liquid would carry magnetic flux lines with it, and this would generate new currents, producing new flux in the opposite direction. See also the interview of Humphreys in Creation 15(3):20–23, 1993.">5,Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, 2:129–142, 1990. Dr Barnes, who had opposed field reversals because no mechanism could be demonstrated, responded (p. 141): ‘Dr Humphreys has come up with a novel and physically sound approach to reversals of the magnetic field.’">6

The earth's magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young - creation.com

 

[Radagast]

Pole reversal had nothing to do with it.

Huh?

Why don't you read the Bible sometime?

Being a christian, I do.

 

[jamesbond007]

So how did these secular scientists discover the pole reversals? It's attributed to geologist Bernard Brunhes in 1906. Sure enough, he's looking a volcanic rock which we've already shown how the reversal occurs. It just so happened in the video I watched, after Brunhes made his discovery, guess who pops up in the video? I started laughing hysterically and could not finish watching .

 

[Radagast]

It's attributed to geologist Bernard Brunhes in 1906. Sure enough, he's looking a volcanic rock which we've already shown how the reversal occurs.

(1) You watch too many videos, and don't read enough books.

(2) I'm pretty sure we don't actually have a video of Bernard Brunhes.

 

[Brightmoon]

Reading creationist blathering isn’t reading a science paper. Humphreys work has been discredited and laughed at) for decades

 

[Ophiolite]

Sure they do. The simple experiment demonstrated that they do. Igneous layers below the seafloor are hotter than the Curie temperature. We get the magnetite showing the nice patterns of NSNS or NSSN whether it's aligned N-S or E-W. Pole reversal had nothing to do with it. Next, in the same breath you introduce changes over time (assuming thousands of years) which is BS. What we have is magnetic reversal present in the cooling.

What you are discussing is secular or atheist geology and atheists are usually wrong.

I pose the same question to you. Where is the demonstration of pole reversal? How can we apply it to the Earth's magnetic field (the devil is in the details here)? Then we'll have more to discuss.

Some condescension, too. Why don't you read the Bible sometime? I've decided to incorporate it into my own life by reading daily .

Fair enough.Point taken. You have no desire to learn; you have no intention to learn; perhaps you even lack the ability to learn.

I offered the advice that you undertake some serious study, but I now accept, from your reply here, that you prefer to work with your prejudices rather than your enthusiasm. I may, from time to time, correct the more egregious errors in your posts, but this will be for the benefit of other readers who might be misled by your nonsense.

For the record, I engaged in daily Bible reading probably long before you were born. Been there! Done that! Got the T-shirt!.

 

[jamesbond007]

Fair enough.Point taken. You have no desire to learn; you have no intention to learn; perhaps you even lack the ability to learn.

I offered the advice that you undertake some serious study, but I now accept, from your reply here, that you prefer to work with your prejudices rather than your enthusiasm. I may, from time to time, correct the more egregious errors in your posts, but this will be for the benefit of other readers who might be misled by your nonsense.

For the record, I engaged in daily Bible reading probably long before you were born. Been there! Done that! Got the T-shirt!.

Now you resorted to the atheist ad hominem attack because they lost.

Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

It means that he is the final judge and that he stands before all humans. Do you know how he does this? I have one theory, but it will be my next topic.

 

[jamesbond007]

Reading creationist blathering isn’t reading a science paper. Humphreys work has been discredited and laughed at) for decades

It wasn't just ceationist blather, but creation science. The magnet experiment was from real earth magnets. They even used larger rare earth magnets. Real science and not fake ones like you subscribe to. You could not explain how poles reverse on something here on earth. Hint: Try an electric motor.

 

[jamesbond007]

(1) You watch too many videos, and don't read enough books.

(2) I'm pretty sure we don't actually have a video of Bernard Brunhes.

I do my share of reading books, but I don't criticize people who do not read. They may know more things than you and are more successful than you.

One learns a lot from both reading and youtubes and I presented both materials in this forum. I learned as I went along and got different ideas from discussing with other members here.

I just pointed out Brunhes youtube. I didn't make it, but guess who used it in their "science" presentation that you condescendingly presented to me. I can't even mention his name without laughing.

The positive is you don't have to throw away your magnetic compasses. And if SWARM finds that we are losing our magnetic field, then we may be able to do something about it with extreme technology. I also presented that one, too.

Since you think you read more books and know more about Brunhes than me, you should've been able to explain how the Earth's poles reverse. Where is your Brunhes? Isn't it odd that I was the one who found this little factoid and that he explored igneous rock?

This may get you started, but somehow I doubt it ha ha.

 

[Ophiolite]

Now you resorted to the atheist ad hominem attack because they lost.

I recently commented to a moderator that "Report rather than Retort" was a pithy way of expressing the best way of handling members who made false accusations. I think it might also be the best way of handling trolls. I may add it to my signature.

 

[Radagast]

One learns a lot from both reading and youtubes and I presented both materials in this forum.

One learns science from books, journals, experiment, and fieldwork. Good videos are very rare.

but guess who used it in their "science" presentation that you condescendingly presented to me.

I think you have me mixed up with someone else.

you should've been able to explain how the Earth's poles reverse

Because the circulating currents in the outer core are chaotic. Spontaneous pole reversals happen in computer simulations of the physics. It's a bit like reversals of the triple pendulum:

This may get you started, but somehow I doubt it ha ha.

Report rather than retort, I guess.

 

[Ophiolite]

Report rather than retort, I guess.

Have I started a meme?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Atheists are usually wrong.

Actually, no. Not usually about science.

Ha ha. Where is your experiment to demonstrate polarity reversal? Then we have something to discuss.

Epic Non-sequitur.

What you are discussing is secular or atheist geology and atheists are usually wrong.

This'll be Great! Where's the evidence for That claim? Feel free to unload it here whenever you're ready...

Some condescension, too. Why don't you read the Bible sometime? I've decided to incorporate it into my own life by reading daily .

I've read the Bible. I've also read the Qur'An, the Torah and some Hindu Vedas for good measure. I occasionally read snippets of translated Ancient Egyptian/Sumerian religions which like Hindu religion, also predate the Judeo-Christian religions by hundreds, if not thousands of years.

 

[PsychoSarah]

"The earth has a magnetic field pointing almost north-south—only 11.5° off. This is an excellent design feature of our planet: it enables navigation by compasses, and it also shields us from dangerous charged particles from the sun. It is also powerful evidence that the earth must be as young as the Bible teaches.

-_-
1. There are plenty of conditions that can result in compasses being ineffective for navigation, such as being in an area high in iron or another magnetic material.
2. If the poles of the magnetic field were purposely made to be ideal for navigation, they should line up PERFECTLY with true North and South. That 11.5 degrees off matters and makes calibration necessary. Countless people have gotten lost assuming that their compass pointed in the direction of true North or true South.
3. Planets where life as we know it could not exist have strong magnetic fields. In our solar system, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are confirmed to have magnetic fields way stronger than Earth's. Venus and Mars have negligible magnetic fields. That means that the only planet in the solar system that doesn't have a confirmed magnetic field (because Pluto got demoted) is Mercury. I wouldn't view what is apparently a very common trait for planets to have independent of the presence of life to be an indication of a trait being designed for life.

In the 1970s, the creationist physics professor Dr Thomas Barnes noted that measurements since 1835 have shown that the field is decaying at 5% per century 1 (also, archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than today 2)

-_- those measurements do not account for the fact that the magnetic field periodically gets weaker and stronger. It fluctuates. Basically, he took out a segment of data that lies solely within a weakening period, and ignored the data that didn't have that trend.

Weakening and strengthening of the magnetic field isn't even consistent across the globe, so it would be very easy to get results that do not fit reality entirely by focusing on a specific region. Is it true that the strength of the Earth's magnetic field is decreasing? What's the effect?

So much so that this Scientific American article suggests that it isn't even within the realm of possibility to provide an outlook for the magnetic field far into the future.

 

[Brightmoon]

I really appreciate all the hard work with the copying and pasting from TalkOrigins. com. A lot of imagination and speculation put into it. It's a good way to save wear and tear on your brain. But all of that hard work does not trump the comments from paleornithologist, Alan Feduccia, whom specializes in the origins and phylogeny of birds...
"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that." - Alan Feduccia, an evolutionary scientist and bird expert.

"Archaeopteryx probably cannot tell us much about the early origins of feathers and flight in true protobirds because Archaeopteryx was, in a modern sense, a bird."- Alan Feduccia, an evolutionary scientist and bird expert.

The fact is... birds have feathers... dinosaurs don't... therefore, the Archaeopteryx was a bird. The best way to prove the Archaeopteryx was evolved from a reptile is to SHOW the transitional fossils, so that we can OBSERVE the incremental, step-by-step transition of the reptile becoming the Archaeopteryx. You'll only need a hundred transitional fossils to prove it, maybe.

most theropod dinosaurs have feathers by the way and in well preserved fossils they can tell what color the feathers were. Archaeopteryx was a Dino-bird not a bird . It has too many reptilian features to be a bird . The gastralia ( belly ribs) nail the fact that this wasn’t a true bird. Feduccia also said that Archie was a bird long before they found those feathered dinosaurs in China . Don’t misunderstand Dr feduccia ; he feels that birds evolved from archosaurs. Dinosaurs also evolved from archosaurs. He’s only proposing that birds evolved from the grandparent lineage .

 

[Darwin's Myth]

most theropod dinosaurs have feathers by the way and in well preserved fossils they can tell what color the feathers were. Archaeopteryx was a Dino-bird not a bird . It has too many reptilian features to be a bird . The gastralia ( belly ribs) nail the fact that this wasn’t a true bird. Feduccia also said that Archie was a bird long before they found those feathered dinosaurs in China . Don’t misunderstand Dr feduccia ; he feels that birds evolved from archosaurs. Dinosaurs also evolved from archosaurs. He’s only proposing that birds evolved from the grandparent lineage .

According to evolutionist and bird expert, Alan Feduccia, the Archaeopteryx was a true bird of flight. If fossils have feathers, then they're birds, not reptiles. If you want to prove a reptile evolved into an Archaeopteryx, then SHOW me the transitional fossils so we can OBSERVE the step-by-step transition from a reptile into the Archaeopteryx. You'll probably need at least a hundred fossils to SHOW the transitioning... this is the end game. Otherwise, everything else is speculation and wild imagination.