Why is it when smoke shows evidence of no evolution you keep demanding you still refuse in look into it?

Question

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/america...




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

spinning up? or spinning down?

Answer 2

The earths magnetic field has decayed and flipped countless times in the geological past. There is a whole field of geology called paleomagnetism. They use the pattern of magnetic-field flips preserved in rocks with magnetic minerals, as a correlation tool, like tree-rings.

At least you correctly said that SCIENCE, not evolution, says that the Earth is 5 (4.5) Billion years old.

Answer 3

If you knew anything about the earths magnetic field, you would know this argument is laughable at best.

the magnetic field can fluctuate and go up and down. It doesn't just steadily decay. Also, if it did steadily decay, you would have to know how much the earth started with for you to be able to extrapolate an age based on how much is left.

Answer 4

It is the custom of men, to ignore unpalatable truths, and stick thier heads in the sand. There are still a lot of holes in the evolution theory, but they leap upon it like a dying man, grasping at a straw, to keep them afloat.
Even if some law, proves a younger earth, that does'nt change the fact, that the earth has had a marked decrease in its magnetic strength over the last 200 years, and the poles are over due to flip by about 600.000 years.

Answer 5

The link sadly doesn't work.

Once claims are substantiated by the scientific community at large, then we can discuss. There were 'scientists' who said they had performed cold fusion, but they made those claims simply to get grants for their research.

It's entirely possible a controversial claim like this is in the same vein (for there are quite a few people who would pay a great deal of money for research to substantiate the claim that the Earth did not evolve and evolution is wrong).

Answer 6

That argument is destroyed at talk origins, in fact the writer of the article refuting it condemns the author (a professional physicist) for being an embarassment to his profession. When you read the refutation it exposes the original article as almost facile and hopelessly flawed. It's a pity that some naive creationists accept such articles at face value when in reality it really is a complete bag of crap that contains "numerous blatant and trivial errors" .

Answer 7

Yes, but the magnetic cycles renew themselves every once in a while, so your last theory is flawed.

And smoke has nothing to do with evolution.

Answer 8

It still doesn't make a lot of sense. It's the string of double negatives that's throwing me.

Your link doesn't work. What does "a factor of 2.7" or whatever actually MEAN?

Answer 9

The 2nd law of thermal dynamics would prove a younger Earth age.No more than 25 or 30,000 years.

Answer 10

What makes you think there's a constant "decay rate"? And who says it doesn't renew itself and start getting stronger again?

If anything, I'd call it flux.

Answer 11

Smoke hasn't provided anything but an unsubstantiated claim.