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.
While some fools focus on the use of the word "yom", other fools might notice the adjectives "ereb" and "boqer" describing it.
If "evening and morning", so clearly provided in the text, can be ignored; then humanity can make Scripture say anything they want. And have done exactly that.
I'm not following you ... what is your conclusion from this?
The seventh day has not yet finished.
You sound like Al Gore. A gazillion scientists agree on this so the matter is settled. Oops, turns out they were wrong and not all agreed anyway.
Excellent presentation. That is the argument I use when discussing this with those who are educated beyond their means. I also have difficulty seeing the thousands of species of plants, animals, insects, bacteria, etc., all coming from the same homogenous primordial soup. Once one fights his way through that logical jungle Creation seems the easy way out.
All is relative. I remember that and it was millions of years ago. More seriouser, I lived in Dallas at the time and was amazed that we were blanketed with ash for several days. St. Helens seemed so far away yet there were parts of it all over the place.
Did I say that? Hint: no.
Did you respond to any point I DID write? Hint: no.
Plants do not need the sun to survive
So why did you stop reading after Genesis 1:3?
v17 says "God set them [greater and lesser light] in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth Now ask yourself, are the "greater and lesser" lights serving merely as backups, or is it possible that when the Scriptures talk of light in vv1-3 the Light there is specifically made before hand to reinforce the six literal day Creation paradigm?
This is an easily testable situation. During a total eclipse of the sun, does the light on earth significantly diminish under the umbra? If all the light that was necessary for plant growth came from the vv1-3 Light, then we shouldn't expect to see any reduction in light during an eclipse. I submit that you are gratuitously adding to Scripture things that don't make sense.
A problem that the cocky Evolutionist throws at the YECist is the idea of "it is always daytime somewhere on Earth". The unsuspecting YECist has to then conjecture some fixed point of reference on Earth - this is based on the assumption that the Genesis 1:1-3 Light is a perfect analog of the Sun which wasn't around until the end of Day Four. IOW, both the first Light and the reference point assume locality and a rotating Earth. That is an assumption that is refuted by the events of the Fourth Day and easily reproducable empirical evidence.
Furthermore, this leaves a particularly disturbing doctrinal problem, since an eclipse proves that the Sun is our primary light source, what happened to the original first Light? Did it somehow extinguish itself at Day Four of the Creation process? Does this render useless the metaphor of those estranged from the Creator being cast into "outer darkness" (Mt 8:12; 22:13; 25:30)?
I submit that the first Light and the reference point to delineate Night & Day do not share the same properties as the assumption demands. Where that first Light was, and where that reference point was I don't know, but I do know it was not anything like the current Sun and Earth - that is, if we want to be logically, rationally and theologically consistent.
(BTW, I do enjoy our little exchange.)
The seventh day doesn't have the same ending statement. The only closure is God ended His work and rested. Judging from the state of the world, one could argue that He's still resting.
What we see today is the results of the Curse - not evidence of Deism.
In view of Jn 14:2-3 He isn't resting but is preparing a New Heaven and Earth. This is why I tell my clients that the Biblical way of solving their problems is not to constantly screw with the the same old "cursed" project, but to view things as Greenfield projects, build the New solution and when appropriate not just replace the old product, but "destroy it with a fervent heat".
Because that sufficed to show that there was enough light to sustain plants before plants were created.
A problem that the cocky Evolutionist throws at the YECist is the idea of "it is always daytime somewhere on Earth". The unsuspecting YECist has to then conjecture some fixed point of reference on Earth - this is based on the assumption that the Genesis 1:1-3 Light is a perfect analog of the Sun which wasn't around until the end of Day Four. IOW, both the first Light and the reference point assume locality and a rotating Earth. That is an assumption that is refuted by the events of the Fourth Day and easily reproducable empirical evidence.
I suppose. Another possible scenario is that like most start the Sun lit off in a dense cloud of dust. Imagine you are in a dense fog, and somewhere near you is an arc light. You are going to see scattered light no matter where you look.
Bonus question: what would happen if someone set up a fan (solar wind/light pressure) blowing from the arc light towards you? A lot of that water would blow onto you as dew. On a planetary scale it would be an extended rainstorm...
Furthermore, this leaves a particularly disturbing doctrinal problem, since an eclipse proves that the Sun is our primary light source, what happened to the original first Light? Did it somehow extinguish itself at Day Four of the Creation process?
It become visible as a distinct source, as opposed to a generalized bright fog.
Does this render useless the metaphor of those estranged from the Creator being cast into "outer darkness" (Mt 8:12; 22:13; 25:30)?
Not in the slightest, before the fog blows away it is still dark far enough away from the sun (think of very very thick clouds here on earth, dark and gloomy days) after it blows away far enough from the Sun is still "outer darkness".
(BTW, I do enjoy our little exchange.)
(Me too. Immensely.)
It was implicit in your argument.
Did you respond to any point I DID write? Hint: no.
No meaningful response is possible when you allow any ad hoc and inconsistent assumptions on each planet's origins and conditions as needed to give the currently observed results.
On a human scale.
I would not presume to speak for God's scale.
Sage advice.
A pair of dogs has a maximum of 4 genetic differences at any given DNA location. It is impossible for a normal pair of dogs to contain all the variations needed to spawn all varieties of dogs, all wolves and all coyotes with a maximum of only 4 variations at any genetic location.
Where did the variation come from? Was it magical?
There is greater DNA variation between jackals and coyotes than between a human and a chimpanzee.
So basically you see no problem with a process that creates greater genetic variation within a few thousand years, but HUGE problems with a process that creates lesser genetic variation within several million years.
Do you see where that might be a problem to a thinking person?
Probably not.
God inspired the text, He spoke in human terms so we could understand it ... the text is clear in what it says ... the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
We are devolving into "vain speculation" here ... regards.
Also, you seem to be rather ignorant of Gregor Mendel and what he did and did not explain.
Mendel explained how existing variations are passed down intact with traits either blending, dominant or recessive, hinting at the double inheritance of each genetic trait (one copy from mom, one copy from dad).
He did nothing, absolutely nothing, towards explaining where the variation came from.
He did nothing, absolutely nothing, towards explaining where human differences came from and how and why they persist within populations.
So what is your explanation? Throwing out a name is not an explanation?
Do you think no explanation is necessary in describing human variation and where it comes from?
From the text, no, no good reason. From the observable universe, plenty.
He spoke in human terms so we could understand it
It's an age appropriate response to the question "Where do babies come from?".
At some point "From the Hospital" is a sufficient and sufficiently accurate answer.
I don't see delving into the back story as necessarily a vain exercise.
There is greater DNA variation between jackals and coyotes than between a human and a chimpanzee.
Scoundrels play those sort of games. Particularly because you are either deliberately ignoring or simply unaware of the mutation that decreased the ability of a jackal (your gratuitous substitution for wolf/dog/dingo in my argument) to interbreed. There is more genetic variation within a family than there is between "races" yet it didn't stop the Evolutionists from caging up Ota Benga, a member of the Pygmy tribe, in a zoo as a sub human animal. Demonstrating yet again what happens when one combines stupidity, atheism and arrogance and misnames it "science".
Besides, you aren't helping your own argument. There is no case ever of a mutation adding genetic information. It was the mutation that made breeding certain animals together create infertile spawn. It was a mutation that divorced the Canis from the Canidae such where they lost abilities. When viewing the fact that mutations reduce viability and future genetic variability (ie small dogs lost the ability to procreate larger dogs), time is the enemy of the Evolutionist as compounding mutations leaves the Evolutionist with a genetically bankrupt sickly Poodle.
Do you see where that might be a problem to a thinking person?
Well can the condescending hypocrite realize that your own argument shouts louder against Evolution? Or is "thinking person" one who thinks that chimpanzees (48) and humans (46) have the same chromosome count while dogs (78), wolves (78), dingos(78) and coyotes(78) don't?
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.