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

[USincognito]

If you continue maintain that modern geology was created solely by atheists I will attempt to reply in a more civilized way.

You mean "cease maintaining", right?

 

[Astrophile]

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.

According to Martin Gorst, in Aeons: The Search for the Beginning of Time (pages 159-160), in 1860 John Phillips, professor of geology at Oxford University and a Christian, used measurements of the amount of sediment transported by the River Ganges to calculate that the total thickness of the sedimentary strata (then thought to be 13¾ miles or 22 km) could have been deposited in 96 million years.

Two years later, in 1862 (ibid., pp. 168-169), Lord Kelvin, who was also a Christian, calculated that the Earth would have cooled to its present state from a molten sphere in 98 million years, with a possible range between 20 million and 400 million years. Kelvin's calculations were regarded as authoritative until the discovery of radioactivity in the 1890s provided a previously unknown source of terrestrial heat, and until radiometric dating of rocks by Bertram Boltwood and Arthur Holmes between 1900 and 1920 started yielding ages of hundreds and even thousands of millions of years.

 

[USincognito]

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?

Tone policing - Wikipedia
>> Tone policing (also tone trolling, tone argument and tone fallacy) is an ad hominem and antidebate appeal based on genetic fallacy. It attempts to detract from the validity of a statement by attacking the tone in which it was presented rather than the message itself. <<

 

[Steve Petersen]

The earth's magnetic field has strengthened and weakened and even reversed a number of times in the past. The record of these changes is recorded in the rocks in quite a number of locations on our planet. Currently we are well into a period of a weakening magnetic field and there is speculation that we may be entering a time of reversal. If so, we may be in for a period in which cosmic and solar radiation levels might be quite high. This could lead to a number of both negative and positive effects most of which are quite beyond our control. Our world and life on it continues to evolve.

But that reversal can take thousands of years.

Geomagnetic reversal - Wikipedia

 

[jamesbond007]

According to Martin Gorst, in Aeons: The Search for the Beginning of Time (pages 159-160), in 1860 John Phillips, professor of geology at Oxford University and a Christian, used measurements of the amount of sediment transported by the River Ganges to calculate that the total thickness of the sedimentary strata (then thought to be 13¾ miles or 22 km) could have been deposited in 96 million years.

Two years later, in 1862 (ibid., pp. 168-169), Lord Kelvin, who was also a Christian, calculated that the Earth would have cooled to its present state from a molten sphere in 98 million years, with a possible range between 20 million and 400 million years. Kelvin's calculations were regarded as authoritative until the discovery of radioactivity in the 1890s provided a previously unknown source of terrestrial heat, and until radiometric dating of rocks by Bertram Boltwood and Arthur Holmes between 1900 and 1920 started yielding ages of hundreds and even thousands of millions of years.

Thank you. I was aware of Lord Kelvin whom is one of the people I use in discussing age of the earth. The explanation about Phillips is helpful. Again, I'm not a mind reader so do not know where these old earth creationists, if they are old earth creationists, are coming from nor where they draw the line between evolution and creation.

 

[jamesbond007]

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.

Let's discuss. Are you saying that archeomagnetic data shows that the polarity of the earth never reversed? How do you explain the reversed polarity in fossils then?

 

[jamesbond007]

But that reversal can take thousands of years.

Geomagnetic reversal - Wikipedia

Personally, I've never seen the reversal and do not know anybody whose compass reversed. My magnetic compasses always pointed N. Yet, we have these magnetic bits in fossils and rocks that are reversed. I thought it was due to the pole reversals. Russell Humphreys says the same thing, but he thinks it's happened the year of Noah's Flood.

Here's another guy who has a simpler explanation ha ha. After seeing it what do you think?

ETA: When we look at the reversals in the layers under the ocean, is it this kind of pattern that we are seeing?

 

[USincognito]

Again, I'm not a mind reader so do not know where these old earth creationists, if they are old earth creationists, are coming from nor where they draw the line between evolution and creation.

You keep using that phrase inappropriately. Old Earth Creationism is a particular position on the Creationism and Evolution spectrum. Basically it's folks who accept deep time, but apply literalism to Genesis. One of the more famous is Hugh Ross. There tend to be a lot fewer OECs than YECs or TEs/PCs.

 

[dad]

Sounds like you've been watching too many sci fi movies. Drilling into the core?

The Deepest oil well on earth is some 40,000 feet deep. The crust of the earth is closer to 100,000 feet. Beyond that, our instruments would be melted by extreme pressures and heat of the lower crust and upper mantle, the mantle being some 9-10 million feet thick.

At best, with advanced technology we might be able to get through the majority of the crust, but beyond that it is highly unlikely that we would ever get anywhere close to the core.

 

[Radagast]

The plate tectonics causing the dynamo is something to consider

Plate tectonics do not cause the dynamo. Currents in the liquid metal of the outer core do.

The magnetic field has both increased and decreased in the past. Currently it is in a decreasing phase.

 

[Radagast]

Personally, I've never seen the reversal and do not know anybody whose compass reversed. My magnetic compasses always pointed N.

No, your magnetic compasses always pointed to the north magnetic pole, which is not at the north pole, and which is moving at about 1 kilometre per week.

 

[Jimmy D]

Let's discuss. Are you saying that archeomagnetic data shows that the polarity of the earth never reversed? How do you explain the reversed polarity in fossils then?

No, I’m not suggesting that it has never reversed, maybe I didn’t express myself clearly.

Humphreys was incorrect in suggesting that there have been many rapid reversals in the last 6000 years, as I understand it there hasn’t been one for hundreds of thousands of years.

Humphreys can’t look at the data objectively though. He starts with the cast iron conclusion that the Earth is approximately 6000 years old and attempts to fit any data to his model. Any data that doesn’t fit is ignored or rejected out of hand.

It’s right there in their mission statement. Do you really think that that is an objective approach to scientific research?

 

[jamesbond007]

You keep using that phrase inappropriately. Old Earth Creationism is a particular position on the Creationism and Evolution spectrum. Basically it's folks who accept deep time, but apply literalism to Genesis. One of the more famous is Hugh Ross. There tend to be a lot fewer OECs than YECs or TEs/PCs.

It's the ones who start off with geology. Are they OEC? Let them answer my question, if they are OEC. With evolutionists, we can go right into the evolutionary thinking since it's part of their history. What kind of history does geology and creation have? RCC papacy has endorsed evolution, so I think I understand their position.

Here's a website I found to explain the differences and JA, who explains things well, states there are different OEC -- Young Earth vs. Old Earth—Where Do They Agree? | John Ankerberg Show

 

[jamesbond007]

Plate tectonics do not cause the dynamo. Currents in the liquid metal of the outer core do.

The magnetic field has both increased and decreased in the past. Currently it is in a decreasing phase.

You're jumping to conclusions or just believing what others tell you. Plate tectonics are moved by the heat convection through the mantle. The heat circulates and move the plates a bit. However, we haven't exactly established a dynamo. That's just theory based on the earth being 4.5 B yrs old.

No, your magnetic compasses always pointed to the north magnetic pole, which is not at the north pole, and which is moving at about 1 kilometre per week.

I know that.

 

[jamesbond007]

No, I’m not suggesting that it has never reversed, maybe I didn’t express myself clearly.

Humphreys was incorrect in suggesting that there have been many rapid reversals in the last 6000 years, as I understand it there hasn’t been one for hundreds of thousands of years.

Humphreys can’t look at the data objectively though. He starts with the cast iron conclusion that the Earth is approximately 6000 years old and attempts to fit any data to his model. Any data that doesn’t fit is ignored or rejected out of hand.

It’s right there in their mission statement. Do you really think that that is an objective approach to scientific research?

Instead of going after Humphreys, please explain what your thinking is based on the archeomagnetic data. What does it mean to you and who is using that? Are they saying there is no magnetic field reversals? Do they not believe in a dynamo theory? How do they explain the reversed polarity?

As for Humphreys, he has critics at his own level and responds accordingly in other papers. We can get into it afterward since you want to bash YEC.

 

[Radagast]

You're jumping to conclusions or just believing what others tell you.

Not really. There's good geological evidence that the outer core is liquid iron. Currents in liquid iron produce a magnetic field. No other explanation for a magnetic field exists.

Plate tectonics and the age of the earth have nothing to do with it.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

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

you mean Christian Scientists? "Creation Science" and Scientists who claim they practice it are an oxymoron.

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.

Nope! There wasn't an "Adam and Eve", we weren't created in 6 days, Earth is in the order of 4.6 billion years old, not 6,000 to 10,000 years old, Leprosy isn't cured with the blood of birds and incantations, domesticated livestock don't give birth to striped offspring if made to look at stripes while they mate, etc.

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.

and they were wrong as shown by the evidence they found themselves let alone everything we've collectively discovered since - we just discussed how the earth is way, Way, WAY Older than 6,000 to 10,000 years old...

 

[Brightmoon]

You keep using that phrase inappropriately. Old Earth Creationism is a particular position on the Creationism and Evolution spectrum. Basically it's folks who accept deep time, but apply literalism to Genesis. One of the more famous is Hugh Ross. There tend to be a lot fewer OECs than YECs or TEs/PCs.

. Jahovahs witnesses are old earth creationists

 

[Brightmoon]

The outer iron core is molten and that’s where the magnetic field is generated from interactions with the inner core. I learned that 50 years ago in elementary school so the science is pretty established. I learned about the magnetic field reversal a year later in middle school( jr high as they used to call it then) as they were laying the new phone cables across the Atlantic they took samples of the ocean floor ( thank you National Geographic). That striped pattern from the Atlantic rift was obvious and there was no way that could have been laid down in a few years . Fast moving tectonic plates would have ripped theplanet apart

 

[Brightmoon]

let me tell you about how obvious this info was . I’m black and this was a time when blacks were extremely poorly educated. I’m female and this was a time when women and girls were actively discouraged from learning science and math. I was a child not even a teen and plate tectonics was brand new science in the 60s and I knew this. What is wrong with you creationists?!?!?!