Magnetic Field

[Larry]

From the ICR site.

Such a rapid decay could not have been going on continuously for millions of years, because the field would have to have been impossibly strong in the past in order for it to still exist today.

They have a serious problem. Either this decay is continuous, which at the low end of a 7% decrease over the past 175 years, puts the magnetic field at zero at around 400 BC. Or, this is a new phenomenon which would then have nothing to do with the age of the earth.

Better yet, why don't they just admit they are making up these assertions in order to fit their preconcieved conclusions.

BTW, I though that graph on the ICR page was quite entertaining.

 

[lucaspa]

Both, perhaps. But at least one is being honest about its preconceptions.

Just the creationist. They warp data to fit theory. You can't do that in science. Instead, theory must change to fit data. But in creationism, the theory is tied to the existence of God, and changes in the theory are viewed as saying that God does not exist.

Remember, the people who falsified young earth were all theists/Christians and many of them were ministers. So their "preconception" was belief in God and they all started out as young earthers.

So, by the time you get to Barnes and magnetic field decay what you have is an already falsified theory -- young earth. This means there is data out there that simply can't be there if the earth really is young. Nothing can make that data go away. There is also literally mountains of data that says the earth is old.

So along comes Barnes and says "hey, I have new data that falsifies old earth -- the decay of the magnetic field." All scientists looked at that and said
"1. A young earth is already falsified.
2. There is considerable data that supports that the earth is old.
3. Therefore, we will test your hypothesis that a decaying magnetic field can only be due to a young earth. IOW, we will try to falsify your hypothesis about the data."

Now, #3 is what Barnes should have done, but he didn't want to.

Now the question became: what else (other than a young earth) could give a decreasing magnetic field? The answer was: magnetic fields reverse! So, now the hypothesis is: the magnetic field has reversed several times during earth's long history. The key here is: can this hypothesis be tested INDEPENDENTLY of the age of the earth? The answer is yes.
1. You can run dynamos and see that the field reverses over time. Dynamos have nothing to do with the age of the earth.
2. You can look for the alignment of iron crystals in once molten rock. They will act like little magnets, freezing in place when the rock cools. Again, this is independent of the age of the earth, since you don't care when the rock has cooled, only that you see different directions for "north" from the magnets. And these have been found.

So, now we still have the evidence that falsifies a young earth, the evidence that supports an old earth, and a supported hypothesis that explains the decreasing magnetic field but is not the hypothesis that the earth is young.

 

[ThePhoenix]

He's from a series called Robotech that came out in the 80's. Though technically, the original series was called Macros.

Actually there were 3 Macross series which were combined into the single robotech series.

 

[TrueCreation]

The old argument on the decaying magnetic field is bogus. Of course the geomagnetic record as an independent consideration is not very unsupportive of a runaway subduction episode anyways.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[Larry]

The old argument on the decaying magnetic field is bogus. Of course the geomagnetic record as an independent consideration is not very unsupportive of a runaway subduction episode anyways.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

What is the 'old argument'?

 

[TrueCreation]

What is the 'old argument'?

--That a current rate of decay of the magnetic field can be used as if it were a constant and extrapolate backwards until the values become ridiculous. A basic understanding of how the geodynamo functions as a function of time and knowledge of paleomagnetism or geomagnetism proves that this argument is bogus.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[lucaspa]

The old argument on the decaying magnetic field is bogus. Of course the geomagnetic record as an independent consideration is not very unsupportive of a runaway subduction episode anyways.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

Runaway subduction has other falsifications.

BTW, that "not very unsupportive" is a weird phrasing. It would seem that you are saying that the geomagnetic record does falsify runaway subduction but you don't think it's an absolute falsification.

 

[TrueCreation]

Runaway subduction has other falsifications.

--Potential falsifications, certainly.

BTW, that "not very unsupportive" is a weird phrasing. It would seem that you are saying that the geomagnetic record does falsify runaway subduction but you don't think it's an absolute falsification.

--What I implied is that the geomagnetic record, considered independently (eg. from radioisotopic dating) does not appear to be inconsistent with what would be expected from an episode of CPT. Albeit, in the long run the GPTS (geomagnetic polarity time-scale) may offer considerable potential falsification to CPT and runaway subduction--as well as the potential to give considerable favour to CPT. However, little is known about the geodynamo and how it functions and evolves over time, including utter ignorance on how/why geomagnetic reversals occur in the first place.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[lucaspa]

Rrunaway subduction would produce all those bands containing the geomagnetic record within a very short time frame -- the year of the Flood according to the proponents of the theory. Therefore, if runaway subduction is true, there should be no geomagnetic record. Thus, the presence of a geomagnetic record showing reversals of earth's magnetic field is not a potential, but actual, falsification of runaway subduction.

 

[TrueCreation]

Rrunaway subduction would produce all those bands containing the geomagnetic record within a very fshort time rame -- the year of the Flood according to the proponents of the theory. Therefore, if runaway subduction is true, there should be no geomagnetic record. Thus, the presence of a geomagnetic record showing reversals of earth's magnetic field is not a potential, but actual, falsification of runaway subduction.

--No. I think you are using the potentially very flawed assumption that geomagnetic reversals would continue to be slow as observed to day and inferred from the geomagnetic record with the backprint of radioisotopic dates. Of course, as I said, the GPTS isn't going to falsify CPT if it is dependent on other phenomena such as radioisotopic dates. Why would you think that with what runaway subduction implies for the catastrophic overturning of the mantle and redistribution of heat and mass (most especially across the CMB!) that the geodynamo would be uneffected? To me, such is ridiculous.

--Independently, I see nothing in the geomagnetic record that is inconsistent with that implied by CPT.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose