From: STEVE PRICE
Subject: ICR & MAGNETIC BUNK
--------------------------------------------------------
Well, in another series of distortions and lunacy, this month's
addition of "Impact" from the Institute of Creation Research.
An indepth, fallacious look at how the ICR thinks the Earth's
magnetic decay rate somehow proves the earth is young. It is
interesting to note that the author, Russell Humphreys, cites
himself four out of twelve times, but all of these cites come
from creationist publications. How I wish I could have cited
myself while attending college, it would have saved me a lot of
time.
{} represents my comments
"The Earth's Magnetic Feild Is Young"
by Russell Humphreys, Impact, August 1993
"The earth's magnetic field is a powerful witness for a world
much younger that the billions of years required by
evolutionary theories.
{And geology's, Astronomy's, Cosmology's, but left unsaid}
Let's start the story with the most prominent feature of the
field today-its very rapid decay.
The Field is Decaying Rapidly
{This is true, but a good joke on himself. He'll later present
a graph which instead shows a decline in decay...}
The average intensity of the earth's magnetic feild has
decreased exponentially by about 7% since its first careful
measurements in 1829. The field's intensity includes components
of strength and direction and tells us the amount of force
turning a compass needle northward. By estimating the feild
intensity everywhere (in, on, and above the earth), we can
calculate the total electrical energy stored in the field.
{Hardly, the mechanisms of the magnetic field is NOT entirely
known, so how {can they calculate it. Secondly, paleomagnatism
shows oscillation in the {past so what good is ANY calculation
on just the intensity of decay.}
Such calculations show that the total energy in the field has
decreased by about 14% since 1829.
Evolutionary Theories Haven't Worked
{EL TORO POOPOO! Paleomagnetic samples from the Atlantic Rift
are on target}
The free-decay theory contradicts the evolutionary dynamo
theories, which claim that complex processes in the earth's
core have converted heat energy into electrical energy, much
like an electric generator, maintaining the field for billions
of years.
{A typical creationist distortion on modern day theory. It
doesn't get {maintained, it oscillates. Secondly, at the
dynamo theory is based on {the effects of fluid movement within
planets and stars, it does NOT {presume what the energy source
is. The energy source can be radio {active heating, growth of
the inner core, or differential rotation of {core and mantle.
I guess Humphreys's knows something, but won't tell.}
Many intelligent scientists have been working on dynamo
theories for over four decades without great success.
Furthermore, recent measurements of electric currents in the
sea floor weigh heavily against the most popular class of
dynamo theories.
Thus evolutionary dynamo theories do not have a good
explanation for the rapid decay of the field, whereas the
free-decay theory does. However, our historical data on the
intensity of the field only goes back to 1829.
{Not true, it's only as far back as they want to go. They can
look sea {floor samples which ALSO contain indicators of
intensity, but if they did {it would ruin his argument..}
Was the field decaying before that? Fortunately, there is a
scientific way to answer that question.
Archaeomagnatism is the study of the magnetization of bricks,
pottery, campfire stones, and other man-related objects studied
by archaeologists. Iron oxides in those objects retain a record
of the strength and direction of the earth's magnetic field at
the time they last cooled to normal temperatures.
{That's interesting, I thought magnetic material in rocks could
only align {when the material they were in cooled to 1100*F.
Those must have been {REALLY hot campfires!}
Archaeomagnetic data taken world wide show that the intensity
of the earth's magnetic field was abut 40% greater in 1000 A.D.
than it is today, and that it has declined steadily ever since
then.
Such a rapid decay could not have been going on continuously
for millions of years, because the field would have to have
been impossibly strong in the past in order for it to still
exist today. Creationists of the 1970's extrapolated today's
decay back into the past, showing that the feold could not be
more than about 10,000 years old, assuming a constant decay of
intensity.
Unfortunately, the archaeomagnetic data do not support that
assumption. Instead the data show that the field intensity at
the earth's surface fluctuated wildly up and down during the
third millennium before Christ (see figure 1). A final
fluctuation slowly increased the intensity until it reached a
peak (50% higher today) at about the time of Christ. Then it
began slowly accelerated decrease. By about 1000 A.D., the
decrease was nearly s fast as it is today.
Intensity
*
*
*
*
**
**
* * *
* * ** **
* ** * **
* ** * *
* * * **
* * * * **
* * * * ***
* * * * ****
* * * * * *****
* * * * *** ******
* * * * * *
* * * * * * *
*************************************************************************>
| * * * * * * Christ Now
| |* * * * *
| | * * *
| | *
| |
| |Flood
|Creation
Figure 1. Magnetic field intensity at the earth's surface, from
creation to now.
{drawn to best of my ability with a text file.}
