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

I just love when people resort to name calling because they can not answer the question. Makes them look really smart. Then one makes the claim that we do not know if the magnetic fields decay rate has remained stable over earths life. I guess they do not understand the uniformitarian principle, which is what scientists use to make the claim that the earth is billions of years old, claiming that the way things work now is the same way they have always worked. If it isn't the same for the magnetic field how do they claim that radiometric decay rates have been constant?

Answer 2

Creationist Claim CD701

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html



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.



@ johninjc:

Comparing magnetic field strength to radiometric dating --- failure.

Answer 3

You realize of course, that the magnetic field is never constant, that magnetic north and south shift around every year by as much as 15 degrees, that the dipole moment is not the same thing as the overall field and that the poles switch fairly consistently every 300000 years or so.



@johninjc - the difference is that radiometric decay rates have always been observed to be constant whereas the earth's magnetic field has been observed to fluctuate, sometimes by huge amounts.

Answer 4

lying for jesus is still lying.



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

Actually, its not a steady decay, the strength varies with highs and lows. It is at a lower point now than in the past, but you cannot extrapolate that this means it was always higher and will only decrease. In fact in rocks in the mid oceanic ridges where new rocks are formed we can measure the strength of the field at the time the rock formed and also its polarity.



I would question the evidence you have provided, especially since it is from 20-30 years ago and from popular news sources, not authoritative journals.

Answer 6

The age of the earth comes from relationship meteroites called chondrites. Chondrites are believed to be representative samples of the primative photograph voltaic equipment. we will not likely use rocks from the earth because of the fact the oldest rocks have been subjected to extremely some actual and chemical techniques. the way they date all of it is through utilising radiometric decay, as we've extremely good constraints on decay expenditures and as a effect through utilising countless equations you could attain a time of formation for a pattern, all you may desire to renowned is the ratio between confirm and daughter isotopes. between the oldest minerals to be dated on earth became from western australia, a zircon crystal, which gave an age of four billion years-ish. utilising that, lunar relationship, different meteorites, astrophysical observations (like composition of the solar, what point its at in its existence span and so on) and extra we've a ball park selection for the age of the earth. yet with modern technologies we do have a sprint bit errors in our measurements however the sum of which may well be max a pair million years (if that), so as that being mentioned, no geoscientist fairly knows the top date of the earth yet we've a good option. attempt taking a geology direction at college or something, you will learn lots and it will blow your techniques.

Answer 7

Whaaaaat? /googles



OK, he's talking about the dipole measurement not the total magnetic field. The polarity has reversed itself many times. The overall field has remained constant even though the dipole varies, it does not decay exponentially.

Answer 8

You keep asking this sort of thing when you have no idea what you are talking about. You copy and past from creationist web sites that, at best, are not giving you all the facts and at worst are deliberately misrepresenting the facts. No where in the web site you linked to does it even mention that Barnes has been criticized by his peers for engaging in sloppy science in reaching his conclusions. I would tell you to not take my word for it, to verify what this web site is telling you on your own, but I know that you are too lazy to do that. You aren't educating yourself if all you do is read web sites that tell you what you want to hear.

Answer 9

This assumes that the magnetic decay has remained constant for the entirety of the earth's existence.

Answer 10

So, you have a copy-paste. Did you actually bother reading it? Understanding it? Doing your own research? Ofcourse not. If you did, you'd realise how stupid you look right now.





You'd know that the magnetic field peaks and dips constantly.

http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/earthmag.html



Also, as in your question you support radiometric dating, how can you then ignore the fossils and rocks that are billions of years old?

Answer 11

So, we conclude the magnetic field decay is accelerating.



Idiot.

Answer 12

Did the Scientific American article say that these findings have any implications for humans being on earth 10,000 years ago? My guess: NOOOOOOO.

Answer 13

I didn't read all that, but you know what? We've found skeletal remains of our ancestors dating back to around 4 million years ago.

Not to mention vast animal life which existed well over 10,000 years ago.

Answer 14

"Evolution-facts.org" probably the most ironically named site on the web.



Present some real science then we can talk.

Answer 15

Education system FAIL.

Answer 16

Copypaste always makes you look smart

Answer 17

Nice paste you idiot.

Answer 18

They weren't there were they?