What’s Going On With The Earth’s Magnetic Field?

Many predictions of what happened in the past that invoke evolutionary models often times come out confusing and falsified. The Earth’s magnetic field has always been a great interest for creationists and evolutionists alike in the field of science. In 1995, something spectacular happened, it was thought to be impossible according to evolutionary models…

New Scientist reports…

“In 1995 an ancient lava flow with an unusual magnetic pattern was discovered in Oregon. It suggested that the field at the time was moving by 6 degrees a day – at least 10,000 times faster than usual. “Not many people believed it,” says Scott Bogue of Occidental College in Los Angeles.”

“Now Bogue and his colleague Jonathan Glen of the United States Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California, say they have found a second example in Nevada. The lava rock suggests that in one year, Earth’s magnetic field shifted by 53 degrees (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2010GL044286). At that rate, a full flip would take less than four years, but there could be another interpretation. “It may have been a burst of rapid acceleration that punctuated the steady movement of the field,” says Bogue.”

Interesting to note, normally “punctuated equilibria” is something connected with biological evolution. Another explanation suggested the data in Nevada was merely local rather than global. Either way, it defies the model which is supposed to explain the behavior of the Earth’s Magnetic field. There is an alternative explanation to this phenomena namely, a worldwide flood!

The Earth’s Magnetic Field has also provided evidence for a young earth. Dr Thomas Barnes discovered in the 1970s using measures taken in the 1800s to his modern time that the field is decaying at 5% per century. Archaeological measurements also have shown that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than in modern times. Using calculations of the decay rate, the earth couldn’t have been more than 10,000 years which is pretty close to the 6,000 years using the Bible and way off the evolutionist model of billions of years!

Despite more than a half a century of research evolutionary scientists have yet produced a workable model to an electric generator which is required to counter the decay rate data and preserve the old age framework that requires billions of years. Barnes’ using a young-earth argument says there is evidence that the magnetic field has reversed many times.

Of course evolutionists rejected Barnes proposal claiming it was invalid because it suggested the earth was young so they embraced their own model which suggested many thousands of years for reversals with intervals of millions of years. Dr Russell Humphreys another creationist thought Barnes was on the right track and modified the model so it would take into account for special effects of a liquid conductor, like the molten metal of the earth’s outer core. A huge contrast in models (between evolution and creationism) with their interpretations of data but many years later with new observations which scientists with their models do you think are closer to what we have observed in nature about the behavior of the earth’s magnetic field?

Dr Humphreys proposed a test for his model: magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks. A thin flow of lava would cool first and record the earth’s magnetic field in one direction. Then the inside would cool later and record the earth’s magnetic field in the other direction. Just three years later after the prediction was made, some observations turned up by evolutionary researchers, Robert Coe and Michel Prévot who found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90° of reversal recorded continuously in it. Eight years later, they reported an even faster reversal. The discovery was staggering news to them and the rest of the evolutionary community, but strong evidence for Humphreys’ model!

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “What’s Going On With The Earth’s Magnetic Field?

  1. Note to any remaining readers: When Michael quotes a source, you MUST read it for yourself, because he has invariably left out relevant context that changes the meaning entirely.

    In this case, he has left out the context that these fast events occurred SIXTEEN MILLION YEARS AGO. Prithee tell us, Michael, how a 16-million year old event proves that the Earth is only 6,000 years old? Fail.

    Besides the facts, of course, which Michael minimizes, that the events may have been local rather than global—new magma spreads over a wide area as it cools, for example.

    There are several other possibilities that the popular-press article did not mention. The Earth’s field at this time is dipole—there is one north pole and one south pole. There have been times in the past when the field was quadrupole—2 north poles, two south poles, spaced far apart from each other. There may even have been an octopole field at one time. These supernumerary poles may form quickly: And may disappear quickly. So the apparent “motion:” of a pole may actually have been the formation of a new pole.

    Another possibility is a tipping poiont or phase change in the earth’s mantle. This is what happens when water freezes–you remove heat and remove more haet, and nothing happens. Until the water freezes all at once. The earth’s core and mantle have a number of different phases—scientists just recently discovered a new one at the very top of the outer mantle, where the physical properties change suddenly. Formation of a pole, or movement of one, could result from such a phase change.

    Michael even digs back into the classic creationist lore that the decreasing magnetic field, when extrapolated backward, “proves” a young age. I think that even AiG has relegated this argument to the dustbin. Why? Because it causes everyone to laugh at creationists.

    .

    BTW, Michael, you have not yet given us your qualifications for discussing magnetic phenomena, geology, or any other recognizable field of science.

    Let alone provided your readership stats, or given us the long-promised review of Signature in the Cell.

  2. Michael, have you actually seen Humphrey’s model for Earth’s magnetic field? He has it starting high at Creation, 6000 years ago, decaying, and then during the 40 day flood going through EVERY SINGLE REVERSAL that we observe recorded in Earth’s crust. On the order of a hundred in 40 days. Then he has it increase in strength to a peak (still less than during creation) when Jesus was around – I’m guessing he had a magnetic personality? – and then decaying to what we observe today. If you think that’s more ad hoc than “evolutionist” models, then I would seriously question your logic skills.

  3. Michael,

    Using calculations of the decay rate, the earth couldn’t have been more than 10,000 years which is pretty close to the 6,000 years using the Bible and way off the evolutionist model of billions of years!

    1. The earth’s magnetic field has been onswerved to fluctuate, as is explained in any beginners geology class, which you apparently have not even taken.

    2. This is not related to evolution. Even if the world was 6,000 years old, evolution would still work. HINT: Some evolution is really fast, for example, the HIV virus has evolved rapidly. It doesn’t take many millions of years.

    3. The Bible doesn’t give an age of the earth, and claims that it does only hurt the credibility of Christians. — Also, the Bible never claims to be a complete hostory book, so claims that we can just use the geneologies in it are moot.

    Dr Humphreys proposed a test for his model: magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks.

    This is so funny because his model has been repudiated by fellow creationists.

  4. As for the creationists who refutes similar claims about the earth’s magnetic field, he says:

    1.The decay is not exponential as claimed. The decay is at a steady straight-line rate

    2.The field has varied in the past, getting stronger and weaker through time, and reversing in polarity. The current decay is a natural part of this fluctuation, and it will eventually reverse and get stronger

    3.Barnes study relied on obsolete models of the earth’s interior, yielding his findings obsolete

    4.Barnes did not measure the total magnetic field strength. He measured the dipole component. This component can fluctuate, while the total field strength remains unchanged.

    Link:
    http://answersincreation.org/argument/G811_creation_science.htm

  5. Well, then there’s young-Earth Creationist Kent Hovind. My understanding is that even among YECs, he is considered pretty fringe. He claims that there actually is no such thing as geomagnetic reversals, that the rocks got all jumbled up when the fountains of the deep opened up. No, I’m not making this up, yes I actually watched about 11 hours of his Creation Science Evangelism “seminars.”

  6. Stuart Robbins :Well, then there’s young-Earth Creationist Kent Hovind. My understanding is that even among YECs, he is considered pretty fringe. He claims that there actually is no such thing as geomagnetic reversals, that the rocks got all jumbled up when the fountains of the deep opened up. No, I’m not making this up, yes I actually watched about 11 hours of his Creation Science Evangelism “seminars.”

    I watched a lot of his debates he does with professors of science as well as scientists. One of the stupidest arguments he does is the “evolution of the fork” from the spoon, in which the “missing link” is the spork. Eric Hovind pulled that out in a debate in Sacramento, California and i was wondering why the scientist let him get away with that one since it is easily refuted.

    His debates have nothing to do with finding the truth or error in evolution, and everything to do with making an ass out of the scientists he talks to. — Then had one debate with an agnostic scientist who was pretty open to God’s existence and seemed like a realy reasonable guy. Kent Hovind went on the ad hominem against him talking about how students feel “persecuted” by him.

    He only apears to win his debates for one reasons: He talks extremely fast and puts 2 hours of nonesense into only 25 minutes which makes him nearly impossible to refute since the counter evidence cannot possibly be fit into that time.

  7. Re sporks.

    there is an interesting evolution analog dealing with tableware.

    During the fair-to-middling ages, people ate with a knife. You cut your food with it, and conveyed it to the mouth by stabbing with the pointy end. Of course, you had to hold the food with your fingers while cutting it. So the knife evolved into two knives (genome duplication). Then you didn’t need to hold the food with the fingers. But, you don’t need to cut two things at once, so the knife was free to get dull and grow another tine so it could hold the food more steadily (adaptation). Next, the fork grew more tines; at some point, you could then scoop food into your mouth with a fork, instead of using a spoon (new function). Finally, since the fork eliminated the necessity for stabbing food with the knife, the knife’s point degraded away to a rounded end (vestigial function).

    And that, my friends, is an evolutionary just-so story of the evolution of cutlery. And you don’t even have to look for transitional fork fossils; people actually saw all this happen, right before their very eyeballs.

  8. Olorin And you don’t even have to look for transitional fork fossils; people actually saw all this happen, right before their very eyeballs.

    Lol true true, but Creationists will use one of two dodges for that,\.

    1. The evolution of the fork is not repetable,

    or

    2. They changed because they were designed to.

    Even if evolution were to be demostrated to a creationists like Kent Hovind, knowing his dodges, he would say “These animals changed on a large scale because they were designed to. It doesn’t prove evolution, and it doesn’t prove we came from a rock.”

    Oh well.

  9. Oh, the situation is much worse than that, Kris.

    Here we thought that the Roman catholic Church was copacetic with evolution. Like heliocentrism, it is allowed although not encouraged.

    Now we find a Catholic geocentrist group. Not only that, they are having a First Annual Conference, titled Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right.

    One might wonder about the “annual” part, however. We always thought that this word meant one orbit of the Earth around the Sun. What would “annual” means to a geocentrist? Smmfff.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s