Evolutionists, How do you explain this?

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 1,400 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 of years.

I did read it in fact, and I understand it completely and have studied it, I just wanted as much fact in it as possible so I copied and pasted it.

Don't make assumptions...you know what it does.

I am not trying to disprove anything. I merely seeing whether or not this is completely true and how evolutionists would explain it. Thats all.

Chill, people. Chill.

Thank you, eleventy, for giving me an answer without sarcasm, ignorant comments and insults. You show how some people who believe what you do can actually be kind. To all those who said it was stupid, out-dated, and just posted 'lmao' to show us you were laughing, thank you for encouraging my horrible perception of atheists/ people who believe in science.

Thank you all

Keyring OS (whatever that means) Im very sorry you feel that way about me. Perhaps you are offended. Let me clear some things up.

I was merely searching for possible things that could disprove Evolution. When I came across this, which I have heard many times and researched many times, I figured it was time for me to test this theory and see what you guys think.

But instead of giving me an ANSWER (I had to spell that out because you obviously didn't realize where you were going when you typed "answers.yahoo.com") you just called me an idiot.

Typical.

Answer 1

The earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity (Gee et al. 2000) and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth's history. This is entirely consistent with conventional models (Glatzmaier and Roberts 1995) and geophysical evidence (Song and Richards 1996) of the earth's interior. Measurements of magnetic field field direction and intensity show little or no change between 1590 and 1840; the variation in the magnetic field is relatively recent, probably indicating that the field's polarity is reversing again (Gubbins et al. 2006).


Empirical measurement of the earth's magnetic field does not show exponential decay. Yes, an exponential curve can be fit to historical measurements, but an exponential curve can be fit to any set of points. A straight line fits better.


T. G. Barnes (1973) relied on an obsolete model of the earth's interior. He viewed it as a spherical conductor (the earth's core) undergoing simple decay of an electrical current. However, the evidence supports Elsasser's dynamo model, in which the magnetic field is caused by a dynamo, with most of the "current" caused by convection. Barnes cited Cowling to try to discredit Elsasser, but Cowling's theorem is consistent with the dynamo earth.


Barnes measures only the dipole component of the total magnetic field, but the dipole field is not a measure of total field strength. The dipole field can vary as the total magnetic field strength remains unchanged.

Answer 2

The Earth's magnetic field has been decaying. It is a mistake, however, to extrapolate that rate of change backwards in time to conclude that the field was much much stronger a few thousand years ago. That's because the Earth's magenetic field goes through cycles, where it decreases, goes to essentially zero, then increases again with the opposite sign. The time period for this cycle is around 100,000 years.

We can easily measure a similar cycle in the Sun, where the magnetic field reverses every eleven years---this is the sunspot cycle. The best evidence for reversals on the Earth are regions of the ocean floor that have a "striped" pattern where the magnetic field direction alternates. This results from upwelling molten rock that spreads out from a crack in the ocean floor. As the rock solidifies, it freezes in the magnetic field direction at the time of its freezing. Over time, the field reversals show up as alternating bands of different magnetization.

Answer 3

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say the magnetic field is 'decaying'. The Earth's interior magnetic field is caused not by solid-state magnets, but by the cycling of molten ferromagnetic metals in the mantle. It is not very informative to talk about it as 'decaying'.

That said, the magnetic field does change over time. Once every so many thousand years it reverses itself, so that its north pole and south pole are in opposite places. Leading up to each reversal is a period during which the magnetic field gradually weakens, and during the reversal itself, the magnetic field is significantly weaker than it normally is (although, contrary to popular belief, this will NOT cause the electromagnetic destruction of human civilization). The Earth is scheduled for another reversal sometime fairly soon (in the order of anywhere from a few decades to a few millennia from now, no one knows exactly), so it is natural that the magnetic field can be measured over a period of centuries to be getting weaker. After the reversal, there will be another period during which it will grow stronger, and so on.

At least, that's what I've heard. One thing I am sure of is that the Earth's mantle could never even support a magnetic field as powerful as the one you're talking about to begin with.

Answer 4

Creationists have no interest in the truth. I have read creationist arguments for 25 years, and I have never come across one that was not a complete fabrication or deception. You can ALWAYS count on the fact that a creationist argument is a pernicious lie. This is because, again, creationists have no interest whatsoever in the truth. Their only interest is justifying their beliefs by converting others, usually dishonestly.

This particular lie is especially heinous. We know for a fact that the Earth's magnetic field is an extremely complex phenomenon that is chaotically generated by pseudo-random electrical currents deep within the Earth. We know for a fact that it fluctuates in strength, and even switches poles on a fairly regular (but chaotic and unpredictable) basis. The creationists want you to believe that a few observations of a chaotic, complex, confirmed fluctuating process, over a teeny tiny span of geologic time is in fact a perfect indicator of the age of the Earth. ********.

At the same time, these same creationists want you to ignore the many, many, MANY different radioisotope dating methods that all agree independently on the 4.5 GYR age of the Earth (not to mention agreement with completely independent historical records such as such as tree rings, ice cores, and varves), despite the fact that this process is: extremely fundamental, basic to the laws of the universe, simple, well-understood, and directly observed to be constant and reliable throughout history (by observing radioactive decay in distant galaxies, where the light has taken many millions or billions of years to get to us).

Rule 1 in listening to creationists: THEY ARE ALL FILTHY LIARS. Remember this and you will never go wrong.

My only question to creationists is: what does the Christian religion say about bearing false witness?

Answer 5

You are assuming that it remains a monotonic change.

It is well documented in the Earth's crust that there have been several reversals of the Earth's magnetic field.

If it reverses it has to go up and down to do this.



Now, researching this is about all of 5 minutes work on the Internet. Why is it that you come and ask a science question in R&S, rather than in the Science section? And why not just do a web search on:

Earth Magnetic Field Change

I just did it for you, why not read the first hit on Yahoo?

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm

Or do you think NASA to be an unreliable source?

Answer 6

All the data I have seen show this is not true. The field of study is paleomagnetism. The chart in the second reference shows its fluctuations over the last million years. I see no noticeable net decay. The first reference cites a study showing the field strength to be about the same 3.2 billion years ago as today.

Answer 7

[edit] Earth's Magnetic Field Decay
Just as Lord Kelvin argued for a young earth due to a weakening magnetic field,[2] Barnes claimed to calculate the half-life of the earth's magnetic field as approximately 1,400 years based on 130 years of empirical data.[3] [4] Some creationists have used Barnes' argument as evidence for a young earth, less than 10,000 years as suggested by the Bible.[5] His critics discredit this controversial theory, claiming Barnes failed to take experimental uncertainties into account and used an obsolete model of the interior of the earth.[6] [7]

Answer 8

I'm hesitant to believe for a variety of reasons..

Professor emeritus = honorary title

Texas = read the news, see who they've kicked out lately.

1829 = I seriously doubt the veracity of any scientific measurements from those days.

Magnetism has a half life? Since when? And how would it be exponental? It's against basic physics...

Got a link?

Answer 9

I am offering you a link that will hopefully clear up some of the confusion you have been reading. Magnetic fields can be complicated and I was not sure I could adequately provide a comprehensive answer so here is a link to some who can.

Answer 10

The magnetic field of the Earth is constantly changing, getting weaker, getting stronger. Sometimes the poles switch. We have a whole lot of evidence supporting this, not just measurements of current magnetic forces. Pay attention to all scientific fields.

Also, this has nothing to do with biology. Nor religion.