Skip to comments.Mercury's Fading Magnetic Field Fits Creation Model
Posted on 10/26/2011 8:44:02 AM PDT by fishtank
Mercury's Fading Magnetic Field Fits Creation Model
by Brian Thomas, M.S. | Oct. 26, 2011
Planets, including the earth, generate magnetic fields that encompass the space around them. Observations have shown that, like earth's, the planet Mercury's magnetic field is rapidly breaking down, and NASA's Messenger spacecraft confirmed that again earlier this year.
If the planets in the solar system are billions of years old, why do these magnetic fields still exist?
In 1974 and 1975, the Mariner 10 spacecraft measured Mercury's magnetic field strength with its onboard magnetometer and sent the data to earth. The astronomers analyzing the data at the time found that the average field strength was 4.8 x 1022 gauss cm3, which "is about 1% that of the Earth."1
A decade later, creation physicist D. Russell Humphreys published a magnetic field model based on clues from the Bible. He reasoned that earth and the planets all shared a watery beginning, in accord with Genesis 1 and 2 Peter 3:5.2 He calculated what the magnetic field strength would have been at the creation by using a mass of aligned water molecules equal to the masses of each planet.
Then, he plotted the rate at which the magnetic fields would have diminished over the roughly 6,000 years since. Humphreys wrote, "Electrical resistance in a planet's core will decrease the electrical current causing the magnetic field, just as friction slows down a flywheel."3 The resulting model accurately predicted the magnetic field strengths of Uranus and Neptune, as well as the declining strength of Mercury's field.4
In 2008, Messenger flew past Mercury and captured a magnetic field measurement, and Humphreys compared it with the decaying slope generated by his creation model. Sure enough, Mercury's magnetic field strength had diminished since 1974, right in line with the predicted value of the creation magnetic field model.
If Mercury's magnetic field is supposed to have lasted for many millions of years, then it should be very stable over vast time periods. But as Messenger's data show, researchers can measure its decay within a person's lifetime.
Humphreys wrote, "My predicted 4% decrease in only 33 years would be very hard for evolutionary theories of planetary magnetic fields to explain, but a greater decrease would be even harder on the theories."3 He anticipated more accurate 2011 measurements, which Science published on September 30.
The Science authors wrote that the field strength for Mercury is "~27% lower in magnitude than the centered-dipole estimate implied by the polar Mariner 10 flyby."5 This confirms that Mercury's magnetic field is rapidly diminishing, which in turn confirms that the field must only be thousands of years oldjust as the creation model predicts.
Ness, N. F. 1979. The magnetic field of Mercury. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors. 20 (2-4): 209-217.
Humphreys, D. R. 1984. The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 21 (3): 140-149.
Humphreys, D. R. 2008. Mercury's magnetic field is young! Journal of Creation. 22 (3): 8-9.
Humphreys, D. R. 1990. Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation. Acts & Facts. 19 (5).
Anderson, B. J. et al. 2011. The Global Magnetic Field of Mercury from MESSENGER Orbital Observations. Science. 333 (6051): 1859-1862.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
OMG! Global DeMagnetization.
George Bush’s fault!
More pin-headery from the infamous Brian Thomas.
Did they consider cycling? The flipping of the poles? Ignoring some data, while focusing on one set to fit a conclusion. Not saying impossible, it just ignores too much other evidence.
Did they consider ANYTHING that would go against their preconceived notions? Of course not!
Being a creationist means never having to let a silly little thing like evidence change what you believe about the natural world.
Evidence is to be ignored, while focusing on the one thing they can find that seems to fit their previously arrived at and ‘not to be questioned because it is from God’ conclusion.
must be those God rays...
Why do folk assume that belief in Creation means accepting a “young earth” version??
Yes I sea! It makes perfect sense, base the initial assumption on a nothing solid, pure water world, ignore any of the changes introducing any solid matter would cause, assume a magnetic field decay rate of pure water that gives the "correct" age, do the calculations based on that decay rate, and get the age you set the decay rate to cause, claim Scientific Proof, and declare victory.
Why do folks assume that it’s OK to mock someone for their belief in Creation. That’s what demoncrats do. They mock when you don’t believe the way they do. I thought FR was better than that.
“Did they consider ANYTHING that would go against their preconceived notions? Of course not!”
I specialize in fluid flow and two-phase particle/fluid systems.
When I see the evidence of massive sedimentary layers with large entrained rocks and boulders in the midst of those layers, the evidence tells me they were deposited in a large worldwide flood.
But then others with a preconceived notion of tranquil millions-of-years-old seas say that uniformitarian conditions were responsible, then the gig is up.
This might be one of those situations.
“Global warming” is a classic example of “political science”. Darwnism is another.
Fishtank, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering
(1) I don’t think you understand the basis of his calcs. The article does seem to have some missing info, I grant you that.
(2) Do you have an possible physical model that could expalin the MEASUREMENTS that have been made?
Fishtank, Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering
Science is of use in discovery and application.
Creationism is an intellectual dead end that has led to nothing in terms of discovery and useful application.
So it is not so much that creationists are WRONG - it is that they are absolutely USELESS.
It isn't so much that a scientific model is correct - it is that it is of use in explaining and predicting reality.
According to the YEC-ees your tagline means that when Martin Luther King, Jr. said "I dream of a day when a man is judged by the content of his character" he clearly meant that he was looking forward to a single literal 24 hour period in all of history when character matters more than color for judging one single man.
However, I can tell you that I believe 100% in a recent worldwide Noahic flood, but I’m only about 99% confident in a recent total creation.
There are plenty of Christians who believe in a billions-year-old earth. Not many of those believe in a recent literal worldwide catastrophic flood, though. That is where I think they err, however.
I try to practice charity in all my discussions on this, though. There’s too little of that.
I’ve never understood that either.
It is not necessary, IMO, to assume the “days” of Genesis refer to 24 hour periods.
Or, FTM, that the days must all be of the same length.
Or to decide that God is incapable of using the evolutionary process as part of his Creation.
I look forward to your future posts. Keep up the great work, sir! (Make that, Dr. Sir!)
I can only speak for myself, but whereas I believe whole-heartedly in a billions of years old earth, I do beleive in a recent catastrophic flood. Even non-Christians have a tough time explaining why such an event spans so many different cultures throughout the planet.
IF we believe the article, we cannot explain the clearly documented magnetic field reversals in the Earth's geological record.
Mars and Mercury have approximately the same mass. Mercury has a magnetic field. Mars, not so much.
Earth and Venus? Same story.
IF we believe the premise, all equal mass planets should have identical magnetic fields.
Science changes all the time to better be able to explain and predict reality.
When this happens creationists are actually ignorant and deluded enough to point to this in an attempt to say that science is useless because it changes day to day - and what scientists think they know is subject to change!
They are actually stupid enough to think this is a point in their favor!
Except for that "evening and morning" thing ...
Why doesn’t this evidence exist on all the land surfaces? Why is there only evidence of a great flood in a few isolated areas? Areas that are down stream from former massive glacial melt-water lakes?
Ummm. The end of the last Ice Age, anyone?
Even today 80% of the world's population lives within 200 ft of sea level.
When all that ice melted off the continents, world wide sea levels rose 300 ft.
That's gonna make an impression on folks world wide...
Funny you'd say that. Not all days have an "evening and morning" were the nth day.
According to the Bible we're still in the 7th day by that criteria.
I concur. While I respect the attempt to propose a young earth, making it absolute necessary doctrine, which is precisely what I see most young earth creationists doing, is in my opinion unbiblical. Scripture simply does not say how old the earth is. Period. The young earth model comes from assembling geneologies together, which is a woefully inaccurate way of calculating the age of the earth. Doctrine based upon clear statements of scripture is hard to argue with. Making doctrine out of inferences, at best, is in and of itself unbiblical.
What do “evening and morning” really mean in the “day”’s before the Sun had been created?
I worded that wrong N&V - I really meant it would be hard to explain away, or to disprove. Just the opposite of what I managed to type. And not for the first time...But I think you are right on the money.
Not all of them do. The ones that consider any other belief to be heresy assume you must accept a "young Earth" version, because anything else means you don't really belive in Creation.
You got that right! Oblivious pin-headery. This bunch continues to embarrass themselves.
Nice to know I'm not the only one that happens to...
“Before Abraham was I Am”.
You are under the illusion that you understand time.
This confirms that Mercury’s magnetic field is rapidly diminishing,...
That is all it confirms, it may have diminished in the
past, stabilized, grown, and diminished again over time.
Not enough information to make any thing other than
a guess as to the age of the planet or how the age
is related to the Magnetic field.
Just a layman’s view.
That's a pretty large flying winger now isn't it?
You’re obviously over the target. It’s funny when a scientist is accused of being anti-science.
Sometimes people will actually tell you you are wrong, simply because, oh, I dunno, because you are?
I’m even worse when speaking. <-—And sadly, that IS exactly what I meant.
Um, maybe because a trillion-amp electric current (the solar wind) is continually flowing at right angles past the planets, which have metallic cores? Gee, I wonder why they might have magnetic fields?
This "we know the universe is young because everything winds down quickly" pseudo-theory does not cut any ice here.
Young earth creationists damage the Christian witness, in my opinion.
Was there some aspect of my question that was “mocking”, or were you referring to others?
Youre obviously over the target. Its funny when a scientist is accused of being anti-science.
Obama is taking a lot of flak, too.
Does that mean he is over the target as well?
I’ve never understood the analogy.
“Young earth creationists damage the Christian witness, in my opinion.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
It’s clear that there’s a lot of genetic information in all creatures and that their attributes can change based on the environments they find themselves living in. Adaptability by life to live under different conditions is not something anyone rejects.
However just because life adapts and you get more specialized animals that can live in a certain environment better than their predecessors, that doesn’t mean they ever had the genetic information to change from bird to lizard, or from one type of animal to another. Instead we see more specialized animals of the same kind being generated. And we also know from genetics that this specialization actually decreases the amount of genetic diversity in those animals than their former predecessors. So the variation you are celebrating as evolution is giving us less genetically robust, specialized species. They get to a point where a mutt can give you many different types of dogs (but they are all dogs) but if you get to a certain purebred and that’s the only kind of dog you’re going to get.
The evolutionists have yet to show one species (macro-evolution) coming from another. And having a second one that exists at the same time that the new species can mate with. Variation within a species nobody disputes because no matter what attributes vary, you still get a bird, or pig, or cat. If macro-evolution was true, we’d have seen it by now, and we’d also never be able to be sure that our animals would give birth to the same kind of animal they are. We don’t sit around and think the cat may have something other than kittens THIS time. We occasionally get an animal with two heads or an extra leg, but in all those cases the animal is not better off and the extra appendage is useless - a defect rather than a benefit. The mutation never creates a part that wasn’t already in the genetic code of the animal - the cow doesn’t get a wing, or scales, or a thumb. They get another part they already had the information to build. Their code contains information to adapt to be different types of cows, but not different types of animals. They will always be a cow because their genetic information does not and never had the information to become a bird. If you never had that information to begin with, there’s now way you’re going to develop it because life requires stability and our chromosomes and the cellular replication processes are designed to maintain that life form. We know what happens to life forms when that mechanism gets damaged - ever hear of cancer?
No one has ever seen macro-evolution (new species from existing species, ex. no bird from lizard), never recorded, some say some theories say you can’t ever see it because everything is now too specialized, some say it happens too gradual, some say it happens extremely fast when it does but the gaps it occurs at are wide apart, yet we’re told this is evolutionary gospel.
NV, I held the same view as you concerning the age of the earth at one time. (I took a lot of geology) It now seems to me that a young earth is just as probable. There is no way to prove either.
It would take approximately twice the volume of water we see today to cover the highest mountains. Where did it all go?
You’re making an assumption that the mass these equally-massed planets have is composed of the same materials, dispersed around each in the same way.
You’d have to in order to say they should have the same magnetic field. I don’t have evidence to say that assumption is valid.
Well DUH! The Earth was flat during the flood *eye roll*
What a silly question.
Why, we drank it, of course.
Where did you study geology?
Mt St. Helens eruption in 1980 showed us how things that look really old can happen in days. The carved canyons with the super heated ash/snow mud carving through rocks, the hydrological sorting that layers sediments. If we had never seen it happen geologists would have looked at these layers and said “millions of years” to carve these canyons.