Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Gary and Harriet Enjoy the Beautiful View on a Honeymoon Hike
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Abolish FReepathons -- Go Monthly
If you sign up, a sponsor will donate $10
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 old—just as the creation model predicts.
References
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.
Yes, you get to retire at age 4.5 billion lol.
Genesis, being one book, is an historical narrative. It makes no sense that the first 3-4 chapters are “allegory” and the rest is historical narrative.
There is nothing allegorical about the lineage declarations in later chapters, it just wouldn’t make sense, and wouldn’t be necessary in an allegorical sense.
...the Talmud (redacted about the year 400 CE), and the three major Torah commentators. There are many, many commentators, but at the top of the mountain there are three, accepted by all: Rashi (11th century France), who brings the straight understanding of the text, ... and then Nahmanides (13th century Spain).
I don't see the utility of depending on commentaries written 900, 2400 and 2600 years, respectively, after Genesis, to determine the specific linguistic meaning to the ancient Hebrews of the word yom (which was my primary concern expressed to the good "literalist" that posted on this thread).
The rest is metaphysical bovine scatology...
In what language?
Ὦ Τιμοπθεε, τὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον ἐκτρεπόμενος τὰς βεβήλους κενοφωνίας καὶ ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως,
Which means what, literally? Or will you have to rely on one of those dreaded "earthly authorities" to tell you what it means?
Speaking of which, the word "science" didn't even exist in English (much less Greek) until the 19th century. The Greek word is gnoseos, which means (approximately) "personal or firsthand knowledge." Which makes that verse very different than the way you are trying to use it...
God bless Tyndale, eh?
But now we have tools like Logos that allow us to, if we have a question as to the original context and meaning, to look up the Hebrew and Greek of the original text and clear it all up.
That’ll preach !!
And further, in context:
1 Tim 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
Other translations read “what is falsely called knowledge”,
but it means the same thing - do not listen to vain ramblings masquerading as something that is known for sure.
BTW, Marx was big on being “scientific”. His theories, by his definition, were “scientific”, and everyone that disagreed with him, he deemed “unscientific”, or “anti-science” in today’s parlance.
Thanks but I’m very well aware of the Hebrew meaning of yom. I tended towards the literal 24 hours simply b/c using the other Bibles references to yom show it to be a 24 hours reference when combined with the numbers [i.e. the 1st day, day two, day three, etc] also please note the term 1st is used rather than the number one which I take implicitly to mean the 1st literal day for the existence of both the Earth and Universe.
YMMV and you know what it is perfectly fine for your mileage to vary - be pretty boring if we all agreed, and were the same, all the time.
Thanks to FR I’ve altered my viewpoints considerably whenever presented w/ new and esp. hidden or obscure evidences. I have a faith in God’s Word stronger than most and a better sense for how it all fits together to His Glory
Yes, in some ways God is metaphysical. But to call it scatology exposes your ignorance and a bias unbecoming of a Freeper. I’ll not waste any further time with you. Sorry you couldn’t appreciate Dr. Schroeder’s speculations. He is a working astrophysicist, IIRC. I don’t even care if you’re ‘credentialed’, given your penchant for hyperbole.
Don't forget the obviously intentional and repeated use of the words "the evening and the morning".
For me [as it should be for all true saints] the Bible is absolute truth and no other source will ever compare. But I think you knew that already...
amd remarks in quotes...
“Are you afraid to answer simple questions?”
I often stop answering your questions b/c they never really stop nor do you show any increase in your understanding of evolution vs creation despite the many varied links presented for you over several years on FR.
“Are you a Geocentrist?”
I tend to lean toward geocentrism due to the work of Einstein [the math for geo vs helio works either way dependent only upon coordinate systems] and Michelson Morley that has been obscured by ‘experts’ over time. [My thanks to GourmetDan for this or I would be completely unaware as mss [main stream science] would prefer for us to remain in abject ignorance.
Now I don’t believe it has to be that way b/c it could just as easily be a wrong interpretation of the scriptures where it says ‘the Earth is the center of it all’ so I’ll simply await the next time science tries to repeat Michelson Morley or similar findings.
“What would you expect in a ‘transitional’ fossil between knuckle walking apes and humans that is not seen in Australopithocine?”
My interpretation of the science and esp. DNA leads me to a strong conclusion that there are ZERO transitionals NOR any truth to macro-evolution. The fruit fly experiments were pretty conclusive.
“What reasonable explanation do you HAVE for fossils like Australopithocine?”
It seems apparent that these are not fully complete fossils therefore any/all conclusions are guesses at best and I see no reason to add to the confusion.
“Why do you use the term religion as a pejorative?”
Simply check out crosswalk.com for scripture references to religion. God only consider one type to be a true religion - the one that cares for widows and orphans in their disress and is not corrupted by the ways of this world. A better way of looking at it is this - Religion is man-made and like man, entirely fallible but faith is a gift [of imputed righteousness] from God.
“Do you admit that religious dogma is a detriment to objective observation and interpretation of reality?”
You may think I’m mixing religion and science but I look at it as finding and distilling the true science by using the clues that God provides in the Bible.
All in less than a year? All with natural forces?
Personally I have no particular problem with the stories of miracles in the Bible. I see no particular reason why God cannot make exceptions to the physical laws He created whenever He chooses to do so.
However, when the Bible says (if taken perfectly literally) that X happened in such a way, but physical evidence in truly massive quantity indicates in happened according to Y, I try to find some way to make the two forms of evidence fit together.
For me, at least, Occam’s Razor points in the direction of the Genesis account being metaphor rather than literal truth.
OTOH, we have absolutely zero physical evidence that the Egyptian plagues, the three Hebrew children, Christ’s reserrection did NOT occur. So I have much less difficulty believing them.
This is possibly a not particularly coherent POV, but it works for me.
To look at it another way: The Bible says, very first verse, “In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
To me this is in absolutely perfect agreement with present scientific evidence about the Big Bang. God created the physical laws and started the process in operation, then let it work itself out.
To believe he created the Universe, I need not believe he turned his personal attention to the formation of every star and planet. They formed themselves following the laws he established.
I don’t find it difficult to believe he did something similar with biology. He started the system and set it down to run. Possibly he enjoys being surprised by some of what results.
“Evolution” is often claimed by its proponents to disprove God’s creation. It does no such thing. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than what Darwin specified, the variation of species. It cannot in and of itself tell us anything about how the first forms of life arose, and certainly nothing about the physical formation of planets, etc.
LOL! Obviously Greek and Hebrew aren’t the only languages some folks on here have trouble with. And the twisting philosophical musings of that gentleman (in his desperate attempt to reconcile his cognitive dissonance), whatever his profession, definitely qualify as “B.S.”
What force do you propose moves the Sun around the Earth while leaving the Earth motionless?
You didn't answer either question about Australopithocine - either in what you WOULD expect to see in a transitional and how Australopithocine doesn't fit the bill - OR in any reasonable narrative where Australopithocine WOULD fit in.
Your interpretation of DNA? Can you even tell me what DNA does?
Somehow I don't think you have even that basic and fundamental knowledge - but I would be amused to be shown to be wrong.
Do you know what DNA does and can you explain it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.