I hate to ask, but would someone who knew how to respond please answer this?

Question

We frequently get many opinions couched as science in the religion section and I was hoping someone knowledgeable could respond to this and answer clearly and appropriately. I appreciate anyone brave enough to take the time. :P

It is with respect to the magnetic field of the earth and how long it has been around.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkkSgsiHSWfInzC3M0J6bI_d7BR.;_ylv=3?qid=20071207132940AA3qSz2

Just to be clear this is not my belief. I just wanted better answers to offer the asker.

Answer 1

Done, thanks for the pointer. Brief summary: data now available shows that hypothesis to be incorrect.

Answer 2

I thought the answers in the other section were clear enough. A half-life argument only applies if the process is exponentially decaying. This is not true of the earth's magnetic field. As some of the respondents mentioned, there have been eras when the earth's magnetic field has changed sign. This cannot be true of an exponentially decaying function.

Your original reference was due to measurements fairly recently taken, since 1829. This is like taking a widely varying function, for example a sinuisoid, measuring the change over a small part of its period, and then extrapolating that behavior from +/- infinity. It is not good science or mathematics.

Answer 3

What possible connection has magnetic fields (reversal or otherwise) got to do with religion

the better question is when did man 1st walk on the planet

and how long before that was the earth formed

Dinosaurs and cockroaches seems to be the most successful creatures ever to walk the planet

The carbon based lifeforms currently inhabiting the earth seem to be intent on it's destruction

Answer 4

With respect (translation - it's a load of rubbish) the earth's field is known to have varied in strength and changed direction, over many millions of years. The main evidence is seen in sea-floor spreading, the same evidence that led to Wegener's theory of continental drift being accepted. The field strength may vary exponentially in the short term - as far as I remember it has reduced in strength by about 10% in the last 100 years - but that doesn't entitle us to say it was fantastically strong a few thousand years ago. Not only is it unlikely, the evidence does not support the idea.

So nice try, again. But not this time either.

Answer 5

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, by hook or by crook.

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. BULLSHIT.

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 rates 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.

Answer 6

I used to hang out in that section for this purpose - to refute arguments based on science. However, far too often the asker wasn't actually interested in the science, and became rude, combative, and obnoxious - as you can see here. So I'm just avoiding R&S from now on and holding my arguments with that type of person in public - they are usually much worse received if they act like that in front of an audience.