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.

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.

Answer 11

There are some links on this site that point out the errors in Dr. Barnes' theories. The main of which is that he didn't publish his works for peer review in scientific journals.

Answer 12

All this proves is that since 1829, the magnetic field around the earth has been weakening. This says nothing about its strength in the past.

Answer 13

By studying magnetic orientations in rocks of varying ages (dating back millions of years), we know that the Earth's magnetic field periodically weakens, changes polarity then strengthens.

Answer 14

And he has been shown wrong, He has confused the irregular change of polarity and its concurrent fluctuations in the magnestic feild, with a linear decay. Creationism, especially young earth creationism, is no more than special pleading, and has nothing to do with science.

Answer 15

That's actually not true. It is true that the strength of the Earth's magnetic field has changed over time, but you're committing a basic fallacy in concluding that you can extrapolate current short-term fluctuations back 20,000 years or more.

Answer 16

The operative word here is Physics. Evolution comes from the field of Biology.



Now, someone who knows what they're talking about (I don't qualify on this one) please explain to me how a magnetic field has a half life. I though that applied to radiation? Gazoo? Where are Yooooo?

Answer 17

While his model may fit current data, it can't necessarily be extrapolated to previous data. At any rate, how do you explain carbon dating putting the Earth at a life of around 4 billion years?

Answer 18

Wow...is this article from 1968 or something? Everyone knows the magnetic fields can strengthen and weaken in cycles.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field#Magnetic_field_variations

Answer 19

Well the Earth's magnetic field is flipping. Doesn't everyone know that?

Answer 20

Bad data, bad analysis, faulty logic.



What peer reviewed Scientific Journal did this come from....



... Oh! it came off a creationist website!! Figures.

Answer 21

A "definitive" work? Hardly. Why isn't this bigger news? Oh yeah, becuse it's:

(a) by some 'scientific' crackpot; or

(b) the ACTUAL data as been manipulated by a religious crackpot (no quotation marks needed here!)

Answer 22

I'm pretty sure that's a bunch of crap...Fossils have been found to be alot older than the few thousands of years your claiming..Do your research next time...I'm from Texas it's a state full of religious nut cases...So it's biased info

Answer 23

I thought it was 1450 years. I used that same argument before. Keep up the good work. maybe some of them will open their eyes and see the truth.

https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20071128053646AAHetbn&show=7#profile-info-a8BIAEc3aa

Answer 24

I'm not sure why you are asking a physics question directed at biologists? They are very different areas of science.

Answer 25

Could this be why his work was not published in peer reviewed journals? The man was a creationist and a quack.

Answer 26

hmm



simple.



its a common occurence of copy/pasting



http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/evidencefor/evidencefor.html



of course you have absolutely no idea what the comment says yourself. if i were to comment on it and try to strike up a conversation/debate with you you would have absolutely ZERO idea how to defend yourself. why? because all youre doing is taking a technical piece of a (bad) creationist website and throwing it on here...thats it.



unless you can explain the theory to us in more detail using your own words....can you?



the reality of the matter is that the magnetic field has changed, altered and has flipped many times....i think what youre doing is taking the fact that its currently moving/changing and backtracking...then assuming this occuence is the OLY occurence and basing your assumption that the earth is young on that.



of course as i stated above you wouldnt be able to respond to that....and ill gladly recant this comment if you:



a: email me

b: message me

c: explain in greater detail here



or d: just do what your fellow theists do. give up and run away.

Answer 27

Sorry, but Thomas Barnes' data is not widely accepted. Try someone more relavent.

Answer 28

You'll accept some idiot's reasoning that supports your beliefs and that no-one with credibility accepts, and yet you turn against science when it contradicts you. Pathetic.

Answer 29

People in Texas need to put their bibles down when attempting "science"

Answer 30

Here.



http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html



(Actually his work is NOT considered to be the definitive work in this field.)

Answer 31

Why not ask in the science section, then post the link?





there you'll get real answers



lost.eu/21618

Answer 32

Can you possibly be serious? What do you gain by posting bogus science? Another PCFA.

Answer 33

instead of answering this, I will give you a link that does a better job of this.

Answer 34

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution



maybe this will help, btw i don't believe in the evolution. in simpler words, the evolution is scientists be live gorillas are our ancestors.

Answer 35

make that Thomas Barnes, Creationist....



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html



Puuuullllllleeeeeeezzzzze,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Answer 36

I explain it as it hasn't been peer reviewed. If you haven't taken it out of context, which I'm not too sure about.

Answer 37

1829? LMAO!

Answer 38

never even heard of this guy...you'd think if his discovery was so great (and actually legitimate and real) it would've been published in a national newspaper...

Answer 39

so 6 thousand years ago we would have weighed about a ton and a half ur sayin ....

Answer 40

Grow up!

Answer 41

Now sit back and watch the avalanche of evolutionists attacking you with bogus evidence and gibberish.

Answer 42

wrong section.

Answer 43

www.talkorigins.org