How about the magnetic field?

Question

Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field. (4) Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth’s magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth’s entire history is young, within a few thousand years.

4. Thomas Barnes, ICR Technical Monograph #4, ORIGIN AND DESTINY OF THE EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD.

Answer 1

And there is a lot more where that came from. Scientist have proved the big bang did not happen( law [not theory] of conservation,of angular momentum)-but many don't want to hear that either. Moon-earth distance relationship, oldest dessert and tree, and coral reef all about -4400 y. Theres is lots of 'stuff' that argues against an old earth.

Answer 2

Dr. Barnes' report was based on 25 actual measurements in 1971, a paper published in 1883, and a model of the Earth that did not include a rotating molten core.

The Earth's magnetic field is cyclical, not one way, as evidenced by magnetic rock samples from the geologic record.

It's interesting to note that Dr. Barnes also denied the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics. For the record, relativity allowed us to build nuclear power plants. Quantum physics allowed people to build the computer that you're typing on.

Please try to stay current.

Answer 3

Having only observed 177 years of a 1400 half life a lot of extrapolation is involved. Also the magnetic field could be periodic like a sine wave. You can assume that rate of this processes today is the same as it has always been. This is not a very good proof of a young earth. Too many assumption.

Answer 4

< Briefly, Barnes took approximately 150 years of data on the Earth's dipole magnetic field and extrapolated it backwards to about 10000 years Before Present (B.P.). He stated that the field 10,000 years ago would, on this calculation, have been as strong as that of a magnetic star, and stated (correctly) that this was absurd. However, there are four fatal flaws in his analysis.

In the first place, Barnes studied only the dipole component of the Earth's magnetic field, In fact, the very same data that Barnes used show that the nondipole component of the field increased during the same period of time, almost exactly cancelling the decrease in the dipole field that Barnes calculated (D. Brent Dalrymple, U. S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park CA, in Reviews of 31 Creationist Books). This alone is sufficient to destroy the basis of his work.

The second failure of Barnes' study was the idea that one can take data from a short period of time and simply extrapolate it backwards to obtain a reliable estimate at a time remotely removed from the data. Anyone competent in analyzing scientific data knows that extrapolations are good only for a relatively short period of time, if at all, and that the further away from the actual data one goes, the less reliable it becomes. Barnes extrapolated 150 years' worth of data back 10,000 years! In real life, one would be surprised if extrapolation of these data more than a few hundred years back were accurate.

The third failure of Barnes' study was the mathematical model he chose. He decided to fit the data to an exponential. The data fit a straight line just as well (see Figure 1 of Stephen G. Brush's article in Scientists Confront Creationism), but a straight line would have given a much older age for the Earth than the 10,000 years that Barnes, because of his Biblical literalism, wishes to promote.

The fourth failure of Barnes' study was his failure to consider any other evidence than the 150 years worth of data from geomagnetic observatories that he used. There exists, in paleomagnetic data, a long record of the Earth's magnetic dipole strength (extending backwards for millions of years). The data are in agreement with the observatory data Barnes used over their common intersection, but they differ drastically from Barnes' extrapolation when one goes further back in time. >

Answer 5

It is decaying at an exponential rate...the exponent is less than 1. The magnetic field cycles in a way that causes the poles to reverse periodically. This is shown by the periodically inverted orientation of magnetic particles in the geologic strata. It's strength varies like a sin wave. Right now its strength is on a down-cycle on it's way to flipping. Compasses will not work for a while, then they will point South.

Answer 6

this is explained by the fact that it begins to weaken as it switchs polarity every 20,000 years, after it switchs over, it is restored in strength. this has been shown by reveres ploarity in geologic stratum and proven with study of old ship logs that accuately measured magnetic north for hundreds of years.
We are due for a switchover so it is showing weakness as it begins to cancel itself out in patches. the next two hundred years should be very chaotic magnetically speaking.

Answer 7

Yes, and the Bible gives the Earth an age of somewhere between 6,000 and 7,000 years.

Answer 8

very interestin many christians believe earth's life is only 6000 year

reply to me at [e-mail]

Answer 9

It sounds like sloppy science to me.

Answer 10

Yikes-- I think we will start falling off soon!

Watch Australia-- guess it will show there forst (or are they JUMPING!)

;>)