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

[Skreeper]

I wanted to see if there was any more to this magnetic field theory by creation scientists. And I did find an update. It's by Dr. Russell Humphreys and he rebuts the "evolutionary dynamo theory." Apparently, the creation vs evolution comes in when the young age of the earth is disputed by evolutionists. Humphreys argues that the free decay theory not only demonstrate a young earth, but goes against the dynamo theory

"The free-decay theory contradicts the evolutionary "dynamo" theories, which claim that complex processes in the earth's core have converted heat energy into electrical energy, much like an electric generator, maintaining the field for billions of years.[5] Many intelligent scientists have been working on dynamo theories for over four decades without great success. Furthermore, recent measurements of electric currents in the sea floor weigh heavily against the most popular class of dynamo theories.[6]"

He also goes on to explain using archaeomagnetic and paleomagnetic data that account for the the reversals of polarity. It occurred during the year of Noah's Flood. He admits that this data contradict the early creationist theory of "constant" decay. There's a little more to add, but I'll stop here because this topic seems to be upsetting people which wasn't my intent.

The Earth's Magnetic Field Is Young

Your mistake starts with: "I wanted to see what creationist scientists had to say".

Creationist "scientists" are just like white noise. They are annoying and don't add anything of value.

 

[Jimmy D]

I wanted to see if there was any more to this magnetic field theory by creation scientists. And I did find an update. It's by Dr. Russell Humphreys and he rebuts the "evolutionary dynamo theory." Apparently, the creation vs evolution comes in when the young age of the earth is disputed by evolutionists. Humphreys argues that the free decay theory not only demonstrate a young earth, but goes against the dynamo theory

"The free-decay theory contradicts the evolutionary "dynamo" theories, which claim that complex processes in the earth's core have converted heat energy into electrical energy, much like an electric generator, maintaining the field for billions of years.[5] Many intelligent scientists have been working on dynamo theories for over four decades without great success. Furthermore, recent measurements of electric currents in the sea floor weigh heavily against the most popular class of dynamo theories.[6]"

He also goes on to explain using archaeomagnetic and paleomagnetic data that account for the the reversals of polarity. It occurred during the year of Noah's Flood. He admits that this data contradict the early creationist theory of "constant" decay. There's a little more to add, but I'll stop here because this topic seems to be upsetting people which wasn't my intent.

The Earth's Magnetic Field Is Young

Did you check what any other geologists say about Humphrey's article or do you accept what he says at face value?

PaleoMag

"Humphreys completely fabricated the notion of rapid reversals of the field (Since archeomagnetic data show no reversals)! Furthermore, the strength of the dipole field does fluctuate and change through time. Currently, it is decreasing, but the field is still much higher than it has been in the past. Just because an explanation is complex, it does not mean it is wrong. In fact, the complex theories for the Earth’s magnetic field are based on real data. Humphreys ‘theory’ is based on a misrepresentation of archeomagnetic data (e.g. drawing reversals and zero lines on a curve that shows neither)……"


Even I can tell with a quick glance what data Humphreys has thrown out here to tell his story....

Actual history of the Earth's magnetic field...

Humphrey's history of the Earth's magnetic field...

Not that it really matters, to be frank, your source is garbage. ICR do not really "do" science, they start of with a apriori beliefs and only bother with data that they feel they can force fit into those beliefs, ignoring everything else.

Mind you, again, none of that really matters, YECism is akin to flat-earthism in that it's patently ridiculous and doesn't really warrant any decent efforts to debunk.

 

[USincognito]

As far as I know, Herodotus thought the earth was thousands of years old due to sediments being deposited in the Nile due to floods.

Archbishop of Ussher calculated to it around 6,000 years.

Neither Herodotus nor Ussher were scientists so I don't see how they are germane to the issue at hand.

 

[USincognito]

How did they establish that the earth was "at least many millions of years old?" Modern geology started with James Hutton.

William Smith is in my link of history of evolutionary thinking -- History: Biostratigraphy. It states he used relative dating of fossils. Buckland is mentioned in Lyell's article. No Whewell, Henslow nor Conybeare.

You do realize that page is not a comprehensive history of geology, right? Also "evolutionary thinking" isn't a thing so stop using it as if it were.

 

[USincognito]

Like I stated, I studied evolution using that website. It is from my alma mater and is thorough in teaching evolution. It gets updated.

And we keep telling you that evolution and geology are two separate fields, thus the Berkeley Evolution site will not have a comprehensive history of geology.

vs evolution's dynamo theory.

Dynamo theory isn't "evolution's" and has even less to do with evolution than geology.

And how do these geologists get an old earth?

By actually looking at the evidence. Many of them set out to support the Flood, but the more they looked the more the actual evidence contradicted the Flood.

Herodotus or Archbishop of Ussher aren't in there. I had to go get them from elsewhere. The old earth is in there though and it includes geologists.

Again,that's because:
That site is dedicated to evolution, not geology.
Herodotus nor Ussher were scientists.
Herodotus nor Ussher were geologists.

 

[tas8831]

I just recently discovered that the moon and Mars have lost their magnetic fields. Doesn't this mean that earth's magnetic field isn't a dynamo? What are the differences between Earth's vs Mars vs Earth's moon? Creation believes that the earth's magnetic field was given by God, has been decaying and will run out around year 3000. I don't think there's any argument about the earth's magnetic field weakening.

Why would God do this?

Doesn't God know how bad that will be for us?

And if He knows, why do this? Sounds cruel and a bit sick.

 

[Ophiolite]

James Hutton can hardly have taught Charles Lyell directly, since he died nearly eight months before Lyell was born.

You are surely ignoring Lyell's use of the devils ouija board to engage with Hutton. Would Hutton choose to be one of the few who communicate from beyond the grave? Well we know he wasn't one for conformity.

 

[Jimmy D]

Why would God do this?

Doesn't God know how bad that will be for us?

And if He knows, why do this? Sounds cruel and a bit sick.

The fall.

Keep up Tas

 

[jamesbond007]

There are a lot of links on that page. You will have to be more specific.

Heh. Why should I be nice to someone who calls me names out of the blue and makes disgusting comments because they're so limited?

 

[jamesbond007]

Your mistake starts with: "I wanted to see what creationist scientists had to say".

Creationist "scientists" are just like white noise. They are annoying and don't add anything of value.

So ignorant. Creation scientists were some of the greatest scientists in the history of science.

 

[jamesbond007]

Neither Herodotus nor Ussher were scientists so I don't see how they are germane to the issue at hand.

Herodotus was the first using reasoning to estimate the age of the Earth. As for the Archbishop, he used the Bible and science does back up the Bible even though it's not a science book.

 

[Speedwell]

Heh. Why should I be nice to someone who calls me names out of the blue and makes disgusting comments because they're so limited?

Then respond to post #65 instead.

 

[Speedwell]

So ignorant. Creation scientists were some of the greatest scientists in the history of science.

Morris? Behe? Dembski? Austin? Ham? Hovind? Yeah, right.

 

[jamesbond007]

You do realize that page is not a comprehensive history of geology, right? Also "evolutionary thinking" isn't a thing so stop using it as if it were.

I can't help it if you cannot understand the history of evolutionary thinking or just think ToE popped up out of nowhere. Furthermore, please enlighten us as to how geology relates. So far, we got geology was used by a few Christians to argue for an old earth, but how old or how that happened who knows? Many Christians thought it was 6,000 years based on the Bible.

 

[jamesbond007]

Then respond to post #65 instead.

Look, I'm no mind reader and do not understand what went on before I posted here. And I'm getting very little response to my questions about geology. However, I do not deserve to be called the following:

"You are the one doing the conflating."

"OK, you win. Modern geology is entirely the invention of evil Bible-hating atheists with no participation of Christians struggling to reconcile the traditional view of Genesis with their new scientific findings. I just made that part up because I am an evil, Bible-hating atheist (an Anglican) myself.

"That is an outright falsehood."

"In other words, you are trying to make the shopworn and intellectually dishonest creationist claim that scientific conclusions about the age of the Earth are driven by a desire to accommodate biological evolution."

All this vitriol from nowhere.

 

[Jimmy D]

So ignorant. Creation scientists were some of the greatest scientists in the history of science.

Do you mean Christian scientists? If so I wouldn’t disagree, although it is rather a sweeping generalisation.

YECs, not so much.

 

[Speedwell]

Look, I'm no mind reader and do not understand what went on before I posted here. And I'm getting very little response to my questions about geology.

Because you have identified yourself as a creationist, a group prone to asking rhetorical questions.

However, I do not deserve to be called the following:

"You are the one doing the conflating."

A factual and accurate response. No vitriol content.

"OK, you win. Modern geology is entirely the invention of evil Bible-hating atheists with no participation of Christians struggling to reconcile the traditional view of Genesis with their new scientific findings. I just made that part up because I am an evil, Bible-hating atheist (an Anglican) myself.

Vitriolic indeed. I have a chip on my shoulder because I lived in the Bible Belt where creationists predominate and was indeed frequently categorized as an "evil, Bible-hating atheist." If you continue maintain that modern geology was created solely by atheists I will attempt to reply in a more civilized way.

"That is an outright falsehood."

A factual and accurate response. No vitriol content.

"In other words, you are trying to make the shopworn and intellectually dishonest creationist claim that scientific conclusions about the age of the Earth are driven by a desire to accommodate biological evolution."

Some vitriol. I will amend that comment to read, "You appear to be making the argument that scientific conclusions about the age of the Earth are driven by a desire to accommodate biological evolution."

All this vitriol from nowhere.

Not from nowhere; it has been well-earned by many of your creationist colleagues. However, I apologize for hurting your feelings. Nonetheless, I stand by my comments as amended.

 

[SkyWriting]

This is one theory and the strongest hypothesis of the earth being a dynamo. I'm not questioning the many reversals of magnetic field. That is demonstrated beyond doubt. What I am questioning is whether the earth is a dynamo and that the magnetic field has some permanence. It's assumed because of evolutionary thinking producing 4.5 billions of years of existence that it is permanent or very long-time. The magnetic field as decaying theory to its end fits better with a 6,000 year-old Earth.

But the scriptures say the mountains are eternal.

Which is longer.

 

[Astrophile]

Sedgewick, Buckland, Whewell, Henslow, and Conybeare were all Anglicans and important early geologists -- the people who established that the earth is at least many millions of years old. John Phillips, the nephew of William Smith, the father of English geology, and a pioneer in geology, was also devout, although I don't know any details about his theology.

Louis Agassiz (1807-73) was a Christian and the son of a Protestant clergyman, and he opposed evolution throughout his life. He showed that the Earth had experienced an ice age, and has been called 'the father of glacial geology', but I do not know how old he thought the Earth was.

 

[sfs]

Louis Agassiz (1807-73) was a Christian and the son of a Protestant clergyman, and he opposed evolution throughout his life. He showed that the Earth had experienced an ice age, and has been called 'the father of glacial geology', but I do not know how old he thought the Earth was.

John Phillips estimated a minimum age of the Earth of 95 million years, based on how long it would take for various stacked features to be produced. And he was using that calculation to attack Darwin, who wanted more time for evolution.