Skip to comments.Mercury’s Magnetic Field is Young!
Posted on 09/04/2009 8:50:36 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Once again, a NASA space probe is supporting the 6,000-year biblical age of the solar system...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
I must have missed NASA's press release.
Isn’t the sun made of burning coal?
Stop embarrassing yourself and the Republican party. You’re welcome in the tent, but it’s high time you stopped running the circus.
Mars is much larger than Mercury but it has no magnetic field. How does that fact fit into this theory?
Similar to last Humphreys’ article, but this one is slightly updated, and includes visual aids such as graphs, etc.
Poor, poor Ion, correct creation cosmological predictions conflict with his world view. Ion very mad. Ion take world view and go home.
One of the problems with this is that the nature of Mercury's magnetic field is not fully understood. It is not like Earths. Google it.
And just what is it that you do every time you post your BS here?
Where was Mercury’s magnetic field mentioned in the Bible? I can’t remember.
I’m a Christian, and even I think this young Earth crap is just that - crap.
But how did the Messenger probe get through the crystal spheres that Mercury and Venus are attached to as they orbit the Earth? And how much phlogiston is still left in the maneuvering tanks?
Mars has been visited recently (19972001) by the
Mars Global Surveyor mission. It provided a more
accurate upper limit on its present low magnetic
moment. It also found striking evidence that Mars
had a strong magnetic field in the past, confirming a
prediction I made in 1984 (Humphreys, 1984, p. 147).
Orbiting low over the Martian surface, the spacecraft
measured alternate-polarity magnetic stripes of
magnetization in the crustal rocks. Figure 8 shows
these magnetic crustal anomalies. These linear
features are similar to those found on earths ocean
floors, but the Martian magnetizations are up to 20
times stronger than those on earth (Acuña et al.,
2001, pp. 2340323417). That points to a strong field
reversing many times in the past, when the rocks
were formed. It is difficult for theorists to explain why
a Martian dynamo would be functioning robustly in
the past but not at all in the present. The water origin
theory, on the other hand has no problem with both
past and present fields, and as I said, even predicted
crustal magnetizations. The core conductivity
required is close to that of earth, so it is within the
expectations of the water origin theory.
Evolutionary theories of planetary magnetic fields?
Do these jokers think that Darwin discussed Mercury or magnetic fields?
Careful. According to the crevos you can't be a Christian or a conservative if you don't believe as they do.
Never mind that magnetic fields fluctuate, including Earth's, and that it is NOT linear in value. But that would be science based on observation, not scripture, so to them, irrelevant.
6,000-year biblical age of the solar system
And Obama ineligible to be president
Again, why did Mars’ magnetic field decay to zero while much smaller Mercury’s didn’t? By his theory Mercury’s field should have decayed to zero BEFORE Mars.
The people that deny science are the Temple of Darwin fanatics who deny God’s handiwork in creation, attribute life to non-life, intelligence to non-intelligence, and a super-sophisticated digital DNA code to chance fluctuations of inanimate matter plus survival.
The smaller the core or greater the resistance, the faster the field will decay
Thanks for the ping!
He is not running the circus, he’s merely one of teh clowns.
Lay off the peyote.
Im a Christian and I don't know about 6 literal days or not. BUT, it does say so in the bible so until it can be explained to me, I will keep an open mind. Many supposed scientific “FACTS” are proven WRONG every day.
Magnetic fields wax and wane, even on Earth as shown by rock evidence of fossil magnetic fields over millions of years.
Take off your blinders and use real science.
Which has changed over the years?
“Science” (human understanding)
or God’s Word?
I’m with you GGG.
It takes more faith to believe that all life is a monumental accident violating the second law of thermodynamics than it does to believe in a Creator.
What’s your theory gonna predict when it goes to zero and then regenerates to pre 1975 levels only in an opposite polarity like magnetic rock evidence on the spreading Atlantic Ocean floor has shown earth’s field to do on about a 250000 year basis.
6,000=15,000,000,000 if looked at in relativistic terms, and humans ability to write.
I do not think the second law of thermodynamics means what you think it means.
This is gonna be a great thread. Pass the popcorn.
Popcorn? This is the real buttery stuff.
I urge you to read Israeli nuclear physicist Gerald Schroeder’s web site and his scientific explanantion of the six days creation, and its correlation to the age of the Universe.
Light travels 300 million meters per second. So at the beginning, the two light pulses are separated by a second of travel or 300 million meters. Now they travel through space for billions of years until they reach the Earth. But wait a minute. Is the universe static? No. The universe is expanding. The universe expands by space stretching. So as these pulses travel through space for billions of years, space is stretching. What’s happening to these pulses? The space between them is also stretching. So the pulses really get further and further apart. Billions of years later, when the first pulse arrives, we read on it “I’m sending you a pulse every second.” A message from outer space. You call all your friends, and you wait for the next pulse to arrive. Does it arrive second later? No! A year later? Maybe not. Maybe billions of years later. Because the amount of time this pulse of light has traveled through space will determine the amount of space stretching that has occurred, and so how much time there will be between the arrival of the pulses. That’s standard cosmology.
Another perfect example of why young adults steer clear of the GOP. Honestly, you and yours need to have your heads examined, IMO.
I certainly do not have the perfect answer. But here is how I have reconciled Science and Faith.
I do emphatically believe that the bible represents the word of God. But, as with other literature scribed by man, it was, and is, an enduring message written for all times to a specific audience. The meaning and message is tireless. But acute understanding of the delivery often leads to confounding absolutes.
An eye for an eye conflicts with turn the other cheek if the context is not understood. When Jesus suggests that a man that causes a child to sin should have a millstone cast around his neck and thrown into the deepest sea, certain, otherwise, absolutionists want to interpret the meaning while emphatically stating that a man named Adam procreated with a woman named Eve and we are all descendants of them both (or of Abraham which includes some genealogical gaps).
In short, the bible is the word of God and includes all of the rules, regulations, hints, advice, expectations, etc. of how we are to hone our souls during this short 80 year existence to be excepted into the Kingdom of God. Jesus came to update the message to a more advanced crowd and place emphasis through activism on the eventual wealth of the least of his people.
I believe David killed Goliath. I believe Moses led the Egyptians out of Captivity. I do not believe that Moses lived to be 1,000 years old. But to a culture whose life expectancy was about 35, a 105 year old man outlived several generations. The Jews were slaves and I doubt their math acumen was very high. But all knew that 1000 years old was a very long life. Back then, even living to be 100 would be a miracle. Did he actually part the Red Sea? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I believe he acted at the behest of God with divine influence and guidance to lead the Jews into the desert.
Sweet! Here comes my favorite part! You know, where the creationists explain how hypotheses based on information from the Bible allow them to reach scientific conclusions.
Typical brainwashed Temple of Darwin fanatic recommending a procedure that ony they themselves would benefit from.
IIRC, Humphreys set up the equations for his predictions so that he’s right no matter what actually gets measured. Then he gets to claim victory. It’s kind of like how the predictions of psychics are always right, even when they’re wrong.
Talk trash to my face and see where that gets you pal.
Ok, I’ll bite, please demonstrate how Humphreys set up his equations so that he’s “right no matter what actually gets measured.”