Revised Estimates Confirms The Creationist Model

In the last few years, secular research has complicated the dynamo theory, to the point where it can’t even hold up to the old age of billions of years. For example, in phys.org back in 2010…

“But scientists’ understanding of dynamo theory has been complicated by recent discoveries of magnetized rocks from the moon and ancient meteorites, as well as an active dynamo field on Mercury – places that were thought to have perhaps cooled too quickly or be too small to generate a self-sustaining magnetic field.  It had been thought that smaller bodies couldn’t have dynamos because they cool more rapidly and are therefore more likely to have metallic cores that do not stay in liquid form for very long.”

Nobody has observed what is really in the Earth’s core, but the mechanism that became popular among secular scientists is the only one in which they thought could be sustained for billions of years, but new research has challenged that, something creation scientists have been saying for years…

In Nature

“Revised estimates of σ and k calculated directly at core conditions have fundamental consequences for the thermochemical evolution of the deep Earth. New estimates of the power requirements for the geodynamo suggest a CMB [core-mantle boundary] heat flux in the upper range of what is considered reasonable for mantle convection unless very marginal dynamo action can be sustained, while a primordial inner core is only possible with a significant concentration of radiogenic elements in the core. There are objections to a high CMB heat flux and also to radiogenic heating in the core, but one of the two seems inevitable if we are to have a dynamo. If the inner core is young, these high values of conductivity provide further problems with maintaining a purely thermally driven dynamo.”

“A thermally stratified layer at the top of the core also appears inevitable. Viable thermal history models that produce thin stable layers and an inner core of age ~1 Gyr are likely to require a fairly rapid cooling rate and some radiogenic heating. The presence of a stable layer, and the effects associated with an increased electrical conductivity, have significant implications for our understanding of the geomagnetic secular variation.”

Geophysicists have discovered that their most popular dynamo theory for the Earth’s magnetic field is not able to sustain itself over vast periods of time which leads them to square one in their evolutionary time frame with this question, “how did our planet retained its magnetic field for “geologic time?” There are  mechanisms that can sustain the Earth’s magnetic field, but not for billions of years which confirms the creationist model of the Earth being much younger!

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Revised Estimates Confirms The Creationist Model

  1. Michael believes what scientists say without question. Except when he doesn’t believe anything they say.

    He swallows whole their assumptions of the (as yet unobserved) structure of the earth’s interior, and the use of density functional theory to estimate heat conductivity of this assumed structure. But he does not believe the dating of the geological column by a number of independent measures, nor the decay rates of radioactive isotopes, nor the constancy of the speed of light—nor even the manual counting of 700,000 annual ice rings in the Greenland and antarctic glaciers.

    The Nature article itself proposes several factors which could affect the results of their computations. The earth’s core may be stratified.[1] Convection may occur by chemical convection, rather than by material movement. Michael even quotes these possibilities himself. Another possibility was highlighted by Michael himself: that the present configuration of the core ,may not be as old as the earth itself.[2]

    There are mechanisms that can sustain the Earth’s magnetic field, but not for billions of years which confirms the creationist model of the Earth being much younger!

    Yer on, Michael. Name ONE creationist mechanism that would sustain the earth’s magnetic field.[3] What a load of horse puckey.

    Creationists’ only weapon is ignorance. If you’re going to rely upon god-of-the-gaps, every new advance in knowledge makes your god smaller and smaller. You might wish to contemplate that.

    =================

    [1] Pop quiz for today: describe biefly hw and why stratification would affcet heat conductivity. Not a clue, right? I thought not.

    [2] We always enjoy Michael’s quotations to support his points when they turn out, upon accurate reading, to support the opposite position instead.

    [3] Hey, name one creationist mechanism of any kind that explains anything. reationism is not bad science—it’s not science at all.

  2. Creationism has always had a problem with geology.

    The original founders of “creation science” in the 1930s included workers having actual scientific credentials in several disciplines.[1]

    But there were no geologists in the movement. Efforts were made to recruit geologists to the cause. Creationist Alfred A. Meyer acquired a master’s degree, but then decided he could no longer believe in a young earth, and ended up in geography.

    As Ronald Numbers relates,[2]

    From time to time promising young evangelicals with an interest in geology ventured to undertake advanced study in the field, only, like the intrepid J Laurence Kulp, to emerge from the exhilarating ordeal with their faith in strict creationism badly shaken.

    Henry Morris, author of The Genesis Flood, thought he had found the perfect candidate in Davis A. Young, who evinced aspirations to become a geologist, and wrote glowingly to Morris after reading his book.

    In 1968 Young enrolled in the PhD program in the geological sciences at Brown University…. [H]e grew increasingly suspicious that the evidence from the rocks did not fit the deluge theory. When Morris in 1969 invited him to join the CRS, Young replied that he was unsure he still qualified for membership. “Altough a few years ago I was in substantial agreement with The Genesis Flood,… I find that on the basis of Scriptural considerations I can no longer accept it.

    A decade later, in 1978,

    Young kept up a steady attack on flood geology, while his own thinking drifted from progressive creationism to virtual agnosticism about the scientific evidence of God’s creative activity.

    Attempts to lure further candidates failed. All of them either did not finish graduate studies or, more often, lost their faith in special creation.

    So there remains no one who has extensive knowledge of geology and who believes in a recent creation.[3]

    . . . . . . . . . .Revised Estimates Confirms [sic] The Creationist Model

    Micheal lives in a fantasy land powered by ignorance.

    ====================

    [1] Including, oddly enough, biologists. This was a consequence of hiring many unqualified biologists to teach at theologically conservative religious colleges to meet a demand for Christian physicians after WWI.

    [2] Quotations are taken from Numbers, The Creationists, Expanded Edition (Harvard University Press 2006), “Flood Geology without Flood Geologists,” pp. 301-311.

    [3] How about Andrew Snelling? See “Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand UP?” On the one hand, Snelling writes young-earth pieces for Answers in Genesis and other creationist screeds. On the other hand, this same Dr Snelling is a consulting geologist who employs the standard old-earth model in his work and in scientific papers. In other words, Andrew Snelling is a hypocrite.

  3. “A thermally stratified layer at the top of the core also appears inevitable. Viable thermal history models that produce thin stable layers and an inner core of age ~1 Gyr are likely to require a fairly rapid cooling rate and some radiogenic heating. The presence of a stable layer, and the effects associated with an increased electrical conductivity, have significant implications for our understanding of the geomagnetic secular variation.”

    Even though he quotes this possible explanation from the Nature paper, Michael refuses to credit it. But we didn’t have to wait very long. The analysis in that paper assumes an essentially uniform cooling of the earth.

    But now we have a study of 70,000 worldwide rock samples[1] showing a major discontinuity about 2.5 billion years ago, which offers at least a partial explanation.[2][3]

    As Reginald Bunthorne was wont to repeat in Gilbert & Sullivan’s “Patience,: “Ah! Crushed again!”[4]

    ====================

    [1] Keller & Schoene, “Statistical geochemistry reveals disruption in secular lithosphere evolution about 2.5Gyr ago,” Nature 485:490-493 (24 May 2012).

    [2] The cause of this disruption is unknown. However, it does predate any Biblical events by about, um, 2,499,994,000 years, or a factor of 500,000.

    [3] An exciting aspect of this result is that it coincides with the oxygenation of the earth’s atmosphere—from parts-per-million of free oxygen to more than 2% O2 (and later 20%). This, of course, may explain the emergence of oxidation as a major source of energy in early cells.

    [4] Called to mind by recent viewing of a dazzling production of “Patience: or, Bunthorne’s Bride” by the Australian Opera Company.

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