Evidence against evolution?

Question

The earth's magnetic field energy has been decaying at a factor of 2.7 over the past 1,000 years. At this current decay rate, the earth could not be greater than 10,000 years old. (Science says the age of the earth is around 5 billion years old)

Answer 1

citation please. it would be silly to accept a claim just because someone says so.

Answer 2

There are several things wrong with this "dating" mechanism. It's hard to just list them all. The primary four are:

While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain key properties of the core are unknown), there are reasonable starts and there are no good reasons for rejecting such an entity out of hand. If it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation is useless.


There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on total energy useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days -- e.g., Humphreys (1988).


Much of the energy in the field is almost certainly not even visible external to the core. This means that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its total energy.

Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.
That last part is more important than it may sound. The Earth's magnetic field is often split in two components when measured. The "dipole" component is the part which approximates a theoretically perfect field around a single magnet, and the "nondipole" components are the ("messy") remainder. A study in the 1960s showed that the decrease in the dipole component since the turn of the century had been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components of the field. (In other words, the measurements show that the field has been diverging from the shape that would be expected of a theoretical ideal magnet, more than the amount of energy has actually been changing.) Barnes' extrapolation therefore does not really rest on the change in energy of the field.

For information, see Dalrymple (1984, pp. 106-108) or Strahler (1987, pp. 150-155) .

Answer 3

I am still awaiting your data. What methodology was used? Since you provide none, I'm going to assume that you you used the standard data Creationists use. It uses measurements of Earth's dipole moment taken from 1835-1965 (hardly 1,000 years), fit to an exonential curve using too few data points, and is statisicly indistinguishable from a flat line (no decay). The key lie is extrapolatating data back on a decay model where there is no evidence that a model to show periodic fluctuation (and there are fluctuations) is not a better model.

This is not evidence. Your own words show why: "current rate of decay". Demonstrate that it is the only rate of decay.

Answer 4

Apart from being a massive exaggeration of the decay rate, it is extremely well established by science that the Earths magnetic field has decayed and flipped many times in the geological past. Omitting mentioning that fact = lying.

Look up paleomagnetism.

Answer 5

The magnetic field has nothing to do with time. And how do you know how big the magnetic field was when the earth was formed. This makes no sense. If you have no idea how big the magnetic field was when the earth was formed, then how can you know how old the earth is based on how much is left. I think you just heard this from someone who convinced you they were smart.

Answer 6

Come on, watching Discovery Channel and skimming through other channels are two things you can't do at the same time. Or, can you?

The movement of the magnetic field poles and it's energy, are practically unpredictable variables. A 1,000 year period is nothing to decide upon.

If you want to mess up with the Theory of Evolution, try harder.

Answer 7

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Gen 1:31 And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Rom 1:20 For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse.
Rom 1:21 Because, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not think fit to have God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do the things not right...

...God and science has never been at odds, science is merely to young to understand.

Answer 8

Then obviously the magnetics field decay has not been at the same pace!

Answer 9

Sorry where is the evidence against evolution which is change in the genetic structure of species over time? It is difficult for creationists to win an argument when they aren't even aware of what evolution is. In any case your hopelessly weak and facile argument is systematically destroyed-not just refuted- at Talk origins.

Answer 10

The age of the planet has nothing to do with the magnetic field. A planet can exist with one or without one.

Answer 11

Where is this quote from? The neatness of the figures to creationist ideology suggests it comes from a less than scientific source.