If man was here 10,000 years ago what kept the earth's electromagnetic field from pulling cells apart?

Question

http://www.evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-4a.htm

31 - MAGNETIC FIELD DECAY—As you probably know, the earth has a magnetic field. Without it, we could not use compasses to identify the direction of magnetic north (which is close to the North Pole). Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, a physics teacher at the University of Texas, has authored a widely used college textbook on electricity and magnetism. Working with data collected over the past 135 years, he has pointed out that earth’s magnetic field is gradually decaying. Indeed, he has shown that this magnetic field is decreasing exponentially, according to a decay law similar to the decay of radioactive substances.

In 1835 the German physicist, K.F. Gauss, made the first measurement of the earth’s magnetic dipole moment; that is, the strength of earth’s internal magnet. Additional evaluations have been carried out every decade or so since then. Since 1835, global magnetism has decreased 14 percent!

On the basis of facts obtained from 1835 to 1965, this magnetic field appears to have a half-life of 1,400 years. On this basis, even 7,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger than it now has. Just 20,000 years ago, enough Joule heat would have been generated to liquefy the earth. One million years ago the earth would have had greater magnetism than all objects in the universe, and it would have vaporized! It would appear that the earth could not be over 6,000 or 7,000 years old. (On the accompanying graph, beyond the point where the curve becomes vertical, our planet would have had the magnetosphere power of a magnetic star!)

"The over-all intensity of the field is declining at a rate of 26 nanoteslas per year . . If the rate of decline were to continue steadily, the field strength would reach zero in 1,200 years."—*"Magnetic Field Declining," Science News, June 28, 1980.

"In the next two millennia, if the present rate of decay is sustained, the dipole component of the [earth’s magnetic] field should reach zero."—*Scientific American, December 1989.

Answer 1

The Bible states 6,000 years for man.

God had all things set in place when He created man.

Gods way is perfect.

Science can't explain the ways of God the creator. Try as he may, man is not greater than his creator.

peace

a friend

in Christ Jesus

Answer 2

The first answer you got says it all, when it comes to this theory. ALL religious takes on science are the SAME THING. They are ALL based on misconceptions, omitted facts and good old fashioned dishonesty. If the "facts" they claimed were really there they would be just plain "science", not "creation science" or some other "special" label to distinguish it from the "evil" scientists who plant dinosaur bones and search for a way to kill God.



Notice in the last sentence they had to add that part between the commas. "...if the present rate of decay is sustained..." Doesn't it seem odd to you that they are claiming that, based on this rate, the Earth IS DEFINITELY less than 10,000 years old, but they don't seem so sure about the field reaching zero? It's the SAME EVIDENCE! Yet for the past you can count on it 100%, but for the future you have to add "if things don't change". Why is that? Because they KNOW things could very well change and they are covering their butts!



I know it's hard to believe, but these people, good Christians as they may be, are purposely working to deceive. They may be doing it with the best of intentions, but it is deceptive, nonetheless, and purposely so. You cannot come up with a "theory" like this without knowing the facts. And if you use ALL the facts, this nonsense quickly falls apart, so you have to selectively omit facts. This takes thought and skill to manipulate the facts to support an argument for which there is no real basis. This deception can only occur intentionally.

Answer 3

Why are you using sources from the eighties? Science has improved since then. And why do you believe a website that contradicts itself?



That page you linked to clearly states, "Most of the factors described above would apply to the age of the earth, which appears to be decidedly less than 10,000 years."



And yet if you click on the home page - http://www.evolution-facts.org/index.htm - they are trying to prove that man walked with dinosaurs by displaying a photograph of an iron axe in "a solid mass of cretaceous rock".



My problem with that? The Cretaceous period was (as Science knows today) 145.5 to 65.5 million years ago...

Answer 4

ALL CREATIONIST ARGUMENTS ARE DISHONEST. When you repeat one without realizing it, you associate your religion with ignorance, arrogance, and dishonesty. Do you really want to keep doing that?





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).



2. 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.



3. 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.



4. 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 5

we are fairly in all possibility in the midst of a magnetic container "reversal," something that occurs each 10-20,000 years in the international. it fairly is occurred 1000's of situations previously, it fairly is not any huge deal (different than to compasses and a few birds that magnetically navigate). the sector gets weaker because it nears a reversal. besides the undeniable fact that, it does not shrink via 0.5 each 1400 years, and it in basic terms runs in cycles. The claims from TEH approximately that have been shown fake. So have all his different ridiculous claims. the actual question is: why might you quite have faith some understand-no longer something pseudo-scientific fool, who makes issues up and can be shown to be mendacity, than definitely backed-via evidence info? Is it because of the fact the made-up lies coincide which contain your "ideals," and the info do no longer? Vance Ferrell must feel embarrassment approximately his dishonesty. I pay attention even the SDA church is upset at him for his paintings... Peace.

Answer 6

So what you're saying is that God created a planet that with a magnetic field that is slowly decaying? And that's your perfect god? Anyway, as creationist baloney goes, yours is well done. I hope to see more of your work in the future.

Answer 7

And yet the magnetic field fluctuates as all REAL data shows. So what it was 135 years ago says nothing as to what it was 140 years ago.

Answer 8

So what is it with you posting such utter dishonest nonsense? You really think ANYONE is gonna take your rubbish at face value? Seriously?



Dreamstuff Entity already showed up exactly how this is bilge. The rest of us destroyed your last one. So how long are you gonna keep on copy-pasting things that have been repeatedly proven to be flat-out lies?

Answer 9

If your "Scientists" and logic were correct, no life would have existed, the planets would not have existed, REALITY would not have existed...therefore, your question is rendered moot, and you are a sub-human zombie, posing as a thinker! Not even a good attempt at a question!

Answer 10

I would just like to agree with dreamstuff entity and ask, why do you feel the need to lie for your religion? Is that what jesus would do?



and if you repeat a lie without bothering to check its, it makes you a fool AND a liar

Answer 11

You're really reaching out on the false assumptions from extrapolation today, aren't you?



Nice selective quote-mining there, too.



Pretending science supports your creation myths, when it doesn't, is lying. I thought magic jesus didn't want you to lie?



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html#magnetic



Peace.

Answer 12

Wrong. You would know that if you weren't too lazy to actually read about the subject beyond biased creationist web sites which only tell you what you want to hear.

Answer 13

Same reason it's not today; we have evolved to survive in this environment, it's as simple as that...

Answer 14

Stop reading creationist propaganda sites, they'll turn you into an idiot.

Answer 15

It doesn't sound like anything was here, does it?

Answer 16

Please ask this in Science. Oh, pretty please? I'd pay good money to see that show.