I've been reading a bit on the earth's decreasing electromagnetic field. It seems both the secular and creationist sides agrees that it has decreased 10% or so in the last 150 years.
Reference:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnetic_031212.html
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-242.htm
The point of contention is that the secular would argue that this decrease is just part of a cycle of increase/decrease, whereas the creationists say it is a continual trend of decrease.
The secular claim of a magnetic field reversals is true and observable in some rocks, but there is also evidence that the reversals of magnetic strength can occur rapidly back and forth from specific events.
A counterpoint to the creationist position is that the total energy of the field is constant because what is lost in one pole is added to the other. This is also true to some extent. Dr Humphrey's claims to show in a sample span of 30 years that it is true that some energy is added to the other pole, but not enough to counter the amount lost, so that there is still a significant overall loss, which points to a young earth.
Reference:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/magnetic.asp
An interesting related point is that a decreasing electromagnetic field allows more cosmic radiation into the atmosphere, thus tainting any radiometric dating tests, which means the earth will "look" older than it is when relying on radiometric testing.
Thoughts?
Reference:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnetic_031212.html
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-242.htm
The point of contention is that the secular would argue that this decrease is just part of a cycle of increase/decrease, whereas the creationists say it is a continual trend of decrease.
The secular claim of a magnetic field reversals is true and observable in some rocks, but there is also evidence that the reversals of magnetic strength can occur rapidly back and forth from specific events.
A counterpoint to the creationist position is that the total energy of the field is constant because what is lost in one pole is added to the other. This is also true to some extent. Dr Humphrey's claims to show in a sample span of 30 years that it is true that some energy is added to the other pole, but not enough to counter the amount lost, so that there is still a significant overall loss, which points to a young earth.
Reference:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/magnetic.asp
An interesting related point is that a decreasing electromagnetic field allows more cosmic radiation into the atmosphere, thus tainting any radiometric dating tests, which means the earth will "look" older than it is when relying on radiometric testing.
Thoughts?
. It was written by Ivan E. Rouse, who was at the time (1983) associated with Loma Linda University. The article was originally published in the Loma Linda publication, Origins v. 10 (1983). I realize this is 20 years old but its only 10 years older than the Humphreys Impact article cited above. In Part II of the Rouse paper he gives a summary and critique of both the free-decay and dynamo models. He gives several problems with the free-decay model and with Barnes original research. He also gives some problems with the dynamo model but he concludes, The dynamo model seems to be the only viable model for the source of the earth's field and as such is accepted by virtually all geophysicists. This doesn't make it the right model but it does seem to be the best model available at the present time. Now I dont want to quote Dr. Rouse out of context. He is a creationist, and is convinced that the earth is young. But I dont think the free-decay model is accepted by any one without a young-earth agenda, and even some young-earthers dont buy it.
