The earth is 13,000 years old and it is soon to be renewed when Christ comes

[Dirty Penguin]

Just a quick note, FYI...

The Book of Moses is part of the LDS "Pearl of Great Price." It is a portion of several chapters from Genesis in Joseph Smith's translation (i.e. transcription, actually) of the Bible. Just so that you understand, there is nowhere in LDS scripture where we are told the age of the earth or the actualy period of time comprising the creation. FFH has every right to his opinion, but most of us Latter-day Saints do not agree with him on this particular issue. We do not consider the Quran to be a part of our canon of scripture, however we do believe that God has inspired various individuals throughout the history of the world and has enlightened them with great truths. As Latter-day Saints, we believe that God wants us to accept truth wherever we may find it. Should we find truth within the pages of the Quran, we would, of course, accept it.

Thanks for the info.... I didn't mean it as an attack.....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well.... Ishmael is our brother.....so it would stand to reason there would be many similarities, which I am aware there are many...

For instance Jesus is spoken of as a prophet/teacher in the Quran, and the New Testament reveals him to, not only, be a prophet and a teacher, but the Messiah also, who came to redeem us from death/grave and hell....

I see your point.....

 

[Katzpur]

Thanks for the info.... I didn't mean it as an attack.....

No need to apologize. It didn't come across as an attack.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

While I understand what Psarris was getting at he never proved to me that;

1: There is a god(s)
2: This god was or is responsible for what he is asserting.

I'm left with him now having a theory of creation. To me, just my opinion, he put on a great scientific presentation proving nothing. He in no way disproved the theory of evolution than he did his creation theory......Just my thoughts on it......

 

[Tiberius]

Given the Nebulus theory, it would be impossible, by chance, for the sun to appear almost, if not exactly, the same size as the moon, from our perspective, not to mention the moon eclipsing the sun every X number of years.

There is no chance of this happening randomly.

Having two other planets/moons do the same thing just makes it all the more improbable...

I guess the sun just, by random chance, happens to be the right distance from our planet to sustain life also....

Firstly, you are assuming that improbable equates to impossible. This is not true.

Secondly, you are assuming that the distance that the sun is from us was meant to suit us. This is also not true. Life on this planet developed to suit the distance that the sun already was from us. Let me put it this way: Life developed to suit the conditions that already existed. The conditions were not prepared to suit life that would later arrise.

What I would really like to focus on is the earths magnetic field, which gives us clues as to the earths age....

This was also discussed in this video series... I need to go back to that part and review and then discuss....

The earth's magnetic field does not give an indication of the Earth's age. The magnetic field reverses itself every several thousand years. Whenever people claim that the rate of change of the Earth's magnetic field indicates a young earth, they are mistaken. They have not discovered the age of the earth, merely the time since the magnetic field last reversed.

 

[painted wolf]

The earth's magnetic field loses half it's energy every 700 years..

uh... no it isn't.
It is fluxuating but there is no evidence it is decaying at such a rapid pace... all the evidence does indicate that the poles shift every 250,000 years or so.

The problem with the 700 year idea is that it fails to account for recorded magnetic layers and the fact that the "decay" is not exponential but liner.

All in all the evidence fails to account for the fact that the core is a Dynamo and not static.

wa:do

 

[darkpenguin]

Whatever happened to "nobody knows when Christ will return"?

More to the point whatever happened to when a person is dead they stay dead!
Seems a bit like favouritism to me!
Shouldn't there be a union for this sort of thing?

 

[SoyLeche]

More to the point whatever happened to when a person is dead they stay dead!
Seems a bit like favouritism to me!
Shouldn't there be a union for this sort of thing?

Ummm - excuse my ignorance - but what in the heck does this have to do with the thread topic???

 

[darkpenguin]

Ummm - excuse my ignorance - but what in the heck does this have to do with the thread topic???

Erm, earth getting old, christ coming back etc.

 

[FFH]

The earth's magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young

by Jonathan Sarfati
The earth has a magnetic field pointing almost north-south—only 11.5° off. This is an excellent design feature of our planet: it enables navigation by compasses, and it also shields us from dangerous charged particles from the sun. It is also powerful evidence that the earth must be as young as the Bible teaches.

How the earth's magnetic field has changed. The intensity could not have been much higher than the starting point shown, indicating a young age.
In the 1970s, the creationist physics professor Dr Thomas Barnes noted that measurements since 1835 have shown that the field is decaying at 5% per century1 (also, archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than today2). Barnes, the author of a well-regarded electromagnetism textbook,3 proposed that the earth’s magnetic field was caused by a decaying electric current in the earth’s metallic core (see side note). Barnes calculated that the current could not have been decaying for more than 10,000 years, or else its original strength would have been large enough to melt the earth. So the earth must be younger than that.

Evolutionist responses

The decaying current model is obviously incompatible with the billions of years needed by evolutionists. So their preferred model is a self-sustaining dynamo (electric generator). The earth’s rotation and convection is supposed to circulate the molten nickel/iron of the outer core. Positive and negative charges in this liquid metal are supposed to circulate unevenly, producing an electric current, thus generating the magnetic field. But scientists have not produced a workable model despite half a century of research, and there are many problems.4
But the major criticism of Barnes’ young-earth argument concerns evidence that the magnetic field has reversed many times—i.e. compasses would have pointed south instead of north. When grains of the common magnetic mineral magnetite in volcanic lava or ash flows cool below its Curie point (see side note) of 570°C (1060°F), the magnetic domains partly align themselves in the direction of the earth’s magnetic field at that time. Once the rock has fully cooled, the magnetite’s alignment is fixed. Thus we have a permanent record of the earth’s field through time.
Although evolutionists have no good explanations for the reversals, they maintain that, because of them, the straightforward decay assumed by Dr Barnes is invalid. Also, their model requires at least thousands of years for a reversal. And with their dating assumptions, they believe that the reversals occur at intervals of millions of years, and point to an old earth.

​

A ‘force-field’ around the earth.

The earth’s magnetism is running down. This world-wide phenomenon could not have been going on for more than a few thousand years, despite swapping direction many times. Evolutionary theories are not able to explain properly how the magnetism could sustain itself for billions of years.

Creationist counter-response

The nuclear physicist Dr Russell Humphreys believed that Dr Barnes had the right idea, and he also accepted that the reversals were real. He modified Barnes’ model to account for special effects of a liquid conductor, like the molten metal of the earth’s outer core. If the liquid flowed upwards (due to convection—hot fluids rise, cold fluids sink) this could sometimes make the field reverse quickly.5,6 Now, as discussed in Creation 19(3), 1997, Dr John Baumgardner proposes that the plunging of tectonic plates was a cause of the Genesis Flood (see online version). Dr Humphreys says these plates would have sharply cooled the outer parts of the core, driving the convection.7 This means that most of the reversals occurred in the Flood year, every week or two. And after the Flood, there would be large fluctuations due to residual motion. But the reversals and fluctuations could not halt the overall decay pattern—rather, the total field energy would decay even faster (see graph above).8
This model also explains why the sun reverses its magnetic field every 11 years. The sun is a gigantic ball of hot, energetically moving, electrically conducting gas. Contrary to the dynamo model, the overall field energy of the sun is decreasing.
Dr Humphreys also proposed a test for his model: magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record earth’s magnetic field in one direction; the inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction.
Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prévot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90° of reversal recorded continuously in it.9 And it was no fluke—eight years later, they reported an even faster reversal.10 This was staggering news to them and the rest of the evolutionary community, but strong support for Humphreys’ model. (See also Dr Humphreys’ online article The Earth’s magnetic field is young.)

Conclusion

The earth’s magnetic field is not only a good navigational aid and a shield from space particles, it is powerful evidence against evolution and billions of years. The clear decay pattern shows the earth could not be older than about 10,000 years.

Reference

 

[FFH]

Origin of the Earth’s magnetic field

The Humphreys Proposal

Dr Humphreys proposed that God first created the earth out of water.1 He based this on several Scriptures, e.g. 2 Peter 3:5 which concludes that the earth was formed out of water and by water. After this, God would have transformed much of the water into other substances like rock minerals. Now water contains hydrogen atoms, and the nucleus of a hydrogen atom is a tiny magnet. Normally these magnets cancel out so water as a whole is almost non-magnetic. But Humphreys proposed that God created the water with the nuclear magnets aligned. Immediately after creation, they would form a more random arrangement, which would cause the earth’s magnetic field to decay. This would generate current in the core, which would then decay according to Barnes’ model, apart from many reversals in the Flood year as Humphreys’ model states.

Observational support from the fields of other planets

Dr Humphreys also calculated the fields of other planets (and the sun) based on this model. The important factors are the mass of the object, the size of the core and how well it conducts electricity, plus the assumption that their original material was water. His model explains features which are deep puzzles to dynamo theorists. For example, evolutionists refer to ‘the enigma of lunar magnetism’2—the moon once had a strong magnetic field, although it rotates only once a month. Also, according to evolutionary models of its origin, it never had a molten core, necessary for a dynamo to work. Also, Mercury has a far stronger magnetic field than dynamo theory expects from a planet rotating 59 times slower than Earth.
Even more importantly, in 1984, Dr Humphreys made some predictions of the field strengths of Uranus and Neptune, two giant gas planets beyond Saturn. His predictions were about 100,000 times the evolutionary dynamo predictions. The two rival models were inadvertently put to the test when the Voyager 2 spacecraft flew past these planets in 1986 and 1989. The fields for Uranus and Neptune3 were just as Humphreys had predicted.4 Yet many anti-creationists call creation ‘unscientific’ because it supposedly makes no predictions!
Humphreys’ model also explains why the moons of Jupiter that have cores have magnetic fields, while Callisto, which lacks a core, also lacks a field.5 (See Dr Humphreys’ online article Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation)

Cause of the earth’s magnetic field

Materials like iron are composed of tiny magnetic domains, which each behave like tiny magnets. The domains themselves are composed of even tinier atoms, which are themselves microscopic magnets, lined up within the domain. Normally the domains cancel each other out. But in magnets, like a compass needle, more of the domains are lined up in the same direction, and so the material has an overall magnetic field.
Earth’s core is mainly iron and nickel, so could its magnetic field be caused the same way as a compass needle’s? No—above a temperature called the Curie point, the magnetic domains are disrupted. The earth’s core at its coolest region is about 3400–4700°C (6100–8500°F), much hotter than the Curie points of all known substances.
But in 1820, the Danish physicist H.C. Ørsted discovered that an electric current produces a magnetic field. Without this, there could be no electric motors. So could an electric current be responsible for the earth’s magnetic field? Electric motors have a power source, but electric currents normally decay almost instantly once the power source is switched off (except in superconductors). So how could there be an electric current inside the earth, without a source?
The great creationist physicist Michael Faraday answered this question in 1831 with his discovery that a changing magnetic field induces an electric voltage, the basis of electrical generators.
Imagine the earth soon after creation with a large electrical current in its core. This would produce a strong magnetic field. Without a power source, this current would decay. Thus the magnetic field would decay too. As decay is change, it would induce a current, lower but in the same direction as the original one.
So we have a decaying current producing a decaying field which generates a decaying current … If the circuit dimensions are large enough, the current would take a while to die out. The decay rate can be accurately calculated, and is always exponential. The electrical energy doesn’t disappear—it is turned into heat, a process discovered by the creationist physicist James Joule in 1840.
This is the basis of Dr Barnes’ model.

Reference

 

[FFH]

Addendum: Answering sceptical objections

Exponential Decay?

Some sceptics have claimed that an exponential decay curve is wrong, and a linear decay should have been plotted. Now, both exponential and linear decay curves have two fitted parameters:

• Exponential decay (i = Ie-t/τ) requires the parameters I and τ.
• Linear decay of the general form y = mx + c requires the gradient m and y-intercept c.

If the fit were similar, there is no statistical reason to choose one over the other. The fit is very similar for the limited range of data available, with no significant difference between the two.
However, it is a well-accepted procedure in modelling of regression analysis to use meaningful equations to describe physical phenomena, where there is a sound theoretical basis for doing so. This is the case here. Currents in resistance/inductance circuits always decay exponentially, not linearly, after the power source is switched off. For example, in a simple electric circuit at time t with initial current I, resistance R and inductance L, the current is given by i = Ie-t/τ, where τ is the time constant L/R—the time for the current to decay to 1/e (~37%) of its initial value. For a sphere of radius a, conductivity σ and permeability μ, τ is given by 4σμ/π.
A linear decay might look good on paper, but it’s physically absurd when dealing with the real world of electric circuits. In fact, linear decays are rare in nature in general. Conversely, exponential decay is firmly rooted in electromagnetic theory.
Thomas Barnes, who first pointed out magnetic field decay as a problem for evolutionists, was a specialist in electromagnetism and wrote some well-regarded textbooks on the subject. But most of his critics are crassly ignorant of the subject.
Another important point is that these calculations point to a maximum age of the earth. Even if the sceptics were right about a linear decay, it would still point to an upper limit of 90 million years, and this is far too young for evolution.
A final point is that if the decay really were linear, we haven’t got much time left before the earth’s magnetic field disappears!

Multipole components of the field

Some sceptics have claimed:

‘… only the dipole-field strength has been “decaying” for a century and a half … the strength of the nondipole field (about 15% of the total field) has increased over the same time span, so that the total field has remained almost constant. Barnes’ assumption of a steady decrease in the field’s strength throughout history is also irreconcilable, of course, with the paleomagnetic evidence of fluctuations and reversals [in the geomagnetic field] (Ecker, 1990, 105)’
​

The ‘authority’ turns out to be an anti-creationist dictionary compiled by an anti-Christian librarian with, as far as we are aware, no scientific training! Dr Humphreys answered in July 2001:

‘Litany in the Church of Darwin: “The non-dipole part of the earth’s magnetic field shall save us!” That is indeed an old and dismissive evolutionist argument. Tom Barnes discussed it in his papers during the 1970s. I discussed it near the end of my paper “A Physical Mechanism for Reversals of the Earth’s Magnetic Field During the Flood”.6
‘Over 90% of the field is dipolar (two poles, one north and one south), but the rest of it is non-dipolar, or multipolar, such as the quadrupole part (two north and two south poles), the octopole part (four north and four south poles), etc. Just imagine the fields from bar magnets tied together at various angles to one another.
‘In the 1970s, the evolutionists claimed that the very large energy (units are Joules or ergs) disappearing from the dipole part of the field is not really converted into heat, but is somehow being stored in the non-dipole part, later to be resurrected as a new dipole in the reverse direction. Some papers showed that the average field intensity (units are Teslas or Gauss) of some of the non-dipole parts is increasing slightly.7
‘But field intensity is not energy. To get the total energy in a component, one must square the intensity in a small volume around each point, multiply by the volume and a certain constant, and add up all the resulting energies throughout all space. The non-dipole intensities fall off (with increasing distance from the earth’s center) much faster than the dipole intensity, so the non-dipole parts are not able to contribute nearly as much energy to the total as the dipole part. That means the small increase in some non-dipole field intensities does not appear to represent nearly enough energy to compensate for the enormous energy lost year by year from the dipole part.
‘I have my doubts that the paper referred to actually proves the point the evolutionists want to make, that “non-dipole energy gain compensates for dipole energy loss”. Not only does my eyeball estimate above disagree, but the theory of reversals in my 1990 ICC paper disagrees [As shown below, Dr Humphreys no longer has his doubts—he (and anyone who checks the numbers) now knows that the evolutionist claim is fallacious]. It says that some energy will go into non-dipole components, but not nearly enough to compensate for the energy loss from the dipole part. The reversal process I propose is not efficient; it dissipates a large amount of energy as heat. I discussed this, including non-dipole parts by implication, in the second-to-last section (“The Field’s Energy Has Always Decreased”) of my Impact article on the ICR website.
‘As further evidence, I used the authoritative International Geomagnetic Reference Field data—more than 2500 numbers representing the earth’s magnetic field over the whole twentieth century. The bottom line is this:
‘In the most accurately recorded period, from 1970 to 2000, the total (dipole plus non-dipole) energy in the earth’s magnetic field has steadily decreased by 1.41±0.16%. At that rate, the field would lose at least half its energy every 1500 years, give or take a century or so. This supports the creationist model that the field has always been losing energy—even during magnetic polarity reversals during the Genesis flood—ever since God created it about 6000 years ago.
‘The evolutionists, on the other hand, have no workable, mathematically-analyzable theory of reversals. They are claiming that whatever process actually caused the reversals was 100% efficient—that the total energy in their hoped-for future dipole field will be equal to the total energy which was in the dipole field at its last peak (about the time of Christ). That is, their faith in a billion-year age for the field requires them to believe that each cycle is resurrected phoenix-like from the ashes of the previous cycle—with no losses.
‘Put another way, the Church of Darwin requires them to believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics—that all forms of energy devolve down to heat—does not apply to planetary magnetic fields. Sound familiar?’
​

Later, Dr Humphreys published ‘The Earth’s magnetic field is still losing energy’, CRSQ 39(1)1–11, March 2002, which explains the above and more in detail (see full article, and his Creation Matters layman’s summary—The Earth’s Magnetic Field: Closing a Loophole in the Case for its Youth, March/April 2002—both off site).

Reference

 

[Tiberius]

This rubbish again? *Sigh* very well...

The earth's magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young

by Jonathan Sarfati
The earth has a magnetic field pointing almost north-south—only 11.5° off. This is an excellent design feature of our planet: it enables navigation by compasses, and it also shields us from dangerous charged particles from the sun. It is also powerful evidence that the earth must be as young as the Bible teaches.

No it's not.

How the earth's magnetic field has changed. The intensity could not have been much higher than the starting point shown, indicating a young age.
In the 1970s, the creationist physics professor Dr Thomas Barnes noted that measurements since 1835 have shown that the field is decaying at 5% per century1 (also, archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than today2). Barnes, the author of a well-regarded electromagnetism textbook,3 proposed that the earth’s magnetic field was caused by a decaying electric current in the earth’s metallic core (see side note). Barnes calculated that the current could not have been decaying for more than 10,000 years, or else its original strength would have been large enough to melt the earth. So the earth must be younger than that.

Evolutionist responses

The decaying current model is obviously incompatible with the billions of years needed by evolutionists. So their preferred model is a self-sustaining dynamo (electric generator). The earth’s rotation and convection is supposed to circulate the molten nickel/iron of the outer core. Positive and negative charges in this liquid metal are supposed to circulate unevenly, producing an electric current, thus generating the magnetic field. But scientists have not produced a workable model despite half a century of research, and there are many problems.4
But the major criticism of Barnes’ young-earth argument concerns evidence that the magnetic field has reversed many times—i.e. compasses would have pointed south instead of north. When grains of the common magnetic mineral magnetite in volcanic lava or ash flows cool below its Curie point (see side note) of 570°C (1060°F), the magnetic domains partly align themselves in the direction of the earth’s magnetic field at that time. Once the rock has fully cooled, the magnetite’s alignment is fixed. Thus we have a permanent record of the earth’s field through time.
Although evolutionists have no good explanations for the reversals, they maintain that, because of them, the straightforward decay assumed by Dr Barnes is invalid. Also, their model requires at least thousands of years for a reversal. And with their dating assumptions, they believe that the reversals occur at intervals of millions of years, and point to an old earth.

THIS page on Wikipedia regarding Barnes shows that his theories have been discredited. Also, the variations of earth's magnetic field have been observed, and the dates when the magnetic field was altered in the past are confirmed by radio-dating.

A ‘force-field’ around the earth.

The earth’s magnetism is running down. This world-wide phenomenon could not have been going on for more than a few thousand years, despite swapping direction many times. Evolutionary theories are not able to explain properly how the magnetism could sustain itself for billions of years.

Creationist counter-response

The nuclear physicist Dr Russell Humphreys believed that Dr Barnes had the right idea, and he also accepted that the reversals were real. He modified Barnes’ model to account for special effects of a liquid conductor, like the molten metal of the earth’s outer core. If the liquid flowed upwards (due to convection—hot fluids rise, cold fluids sink) this could sometimes make the field reverse quickly.5,6 Now, as discussed in Creation 19(3), 1997, Dr John Baumgardner proposes that the plunging of tectonic plates was a cause of the Genesis Flood (see online version). Dr Humphreys says these plates would have sharply cooled the outer parts of the core, driving the convection.7 This means that most of the reversals occurred in the Flood year, every week or two. And after the Flood, there would be large fluctuations due to residual motion. But the reversals and fluctuations could not halt the overall decay pattern—rather, the total field energy would decay even faster (see graph above).8
This model also explains why the sun reverses its magnetic field every 11 years. The sun is a gigantic ball of hot, energetically moving, electrically conducting gas. Contrary to the dynamo model, the overall field energy of the sun is decreasing.
Dr Humphreys also proposed a test for his model: magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record earth’s magnetic field in one direction; the inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction.
Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prévot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90° of reversal recorded continuously in it.9 And it was no fluke—eight years later, they reported an even faster reversal.10 This was staggering news to them and the rest of the evolutionary community, but strong support for Humphreys’ model. (See also Dr Humphreys’ online article The Earth’s magnetic field is young.)

THIS page on Wikipedia shows that Humphreys has many flawed ideas and his conclusions are suspect.

Conclusion

The earth’s magnetic field is not only a good navigational aid and a shield from space particles, it is powerful evidence against evolution and billions of years. The clear decay pattern shows the earth could not be older than about 10,000 years.

Reference

Conclusion - The creationist position has only been supported by people whose techniques in science are suspect and questionable. The scientific position is able to explain and account for what we see in the real world.

 

[Tiberius]

Origin of the Earth’s magnetic field

The Humphreys Proposal

Dr Humphreys proposed that God first created the earth out of water.1 He based this on several Scriptures, e.g. 2 Peter 3:5 which concludes that the earth was formed out of water and by water. After this, God would have transformed much of the water into other substances like rock minerals.

A perfect example of the creationist technique of starting with your conclusion. You do realise that when you start with what you've already decided to be true, it isn't real science, yes?

Now water contains hydrogen atoms, and the nucleus of a hydrogen atom is a tiny magnet. Normally these magnets cancel out so water as a whole is almost non-magnetic. But Humphreys proposed that God created the water with the nuclear magnets aligned.

First of all, the man understands nothing of chemistry and physics. it don't work this way. When atoms are arranged in a molecule, they do not retain individual electric charges. The molecule acts as a whole. if you understood how atoms in molecules were joined together (by sharing electrons), you'd understand this.

And what exactly does it mean "Nuclear magnets aligned"? Aligned with what? And how would that have any influence? This is nothing more than technobabble that has been made up to sound impressive. Tune in to Star trek and you'll see more of the same.

Immediately after creation, they would form a more random arrangement, which would cause the earth’s magnetic field to decay. This would generate current in the core, which would then decay according to Barnes’ model, apart from many reversals in the Flood year as Humphreys’ model states.

Observational support from the fields of other planets

Dr Humphreys also calculated the fields of other planets (and the sun) based on this model. The important factors are the mass of the object, the size of the core and how well it conducts electricity, plus the assumption that their original material was water. His model explains features which are deep puzzles to dynamo theorists. For example, evolutionists refer to ‘the enigma of lunar magnetism’2—the moon once had a strong magnetic field, although it rotates only once a month. Also, according to evolutionary models of its origin, it never had a molten core, necessary for a dynamo to work. Also, Mercury has a far stronger magnetic field than dynamo theory expects from a planet rotating 59 times slower than Earth.

Did you spot the old Creationist standby? "plus the assumption that their original material was water." When you start by assuming what you are trying to prove, you can prove anything! It's not science!

Even more importantly, in 1984, Dr Humphreys made some predictions of the field strengths of Uranus and Neptune, two giant gas planets beyond Saturn. His predictions were about 100,000 times the evolutionary dynamo predictions. The two rival models were inadvertently put to the test when the Voyager 2 spacecraft flew past these planets in 1986 and 1989. The fields for Uranus and Neptune3 were just as Humphreys had predicted.4 Yet many anti-creationists call creation ‘unscientific’ because it supposedly makes no predictions!
Humphreys’ model also explains why the moons of Jupiter that have cores have magnetic fields, while Callisto, which lacks a core, also lacks a field.5 (See Dr Humphreys’ online article Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation)

Firstly, you do know that the link doesn't actually lead to any article at all? If you're going to provide sources, make them actual sources.

Secondly, the claim that the interior dynamo of gas giants is driven by heat. Heat actually creates turbulence which slows it down. In the colder areas of the solar system, the lack of turbulence-causing-heat allows for much faster dynamo rotational speeds, resulting in the increased magnetic field.

Cause of the earth’s magnetic field

Materials like iron are composed of tiny magnetic domains, which each behave like tiny magnets. The domains themselves are composed of even tinier atoms, which are themselves microscopic magnets, lined up within the domain. Normally the domains cancel each other out. But in magnets, like a compass needle, more of the domains are lined up in the same direction, and so the material has an overall magnetic field.
Earth’s core is mainly iron and nickel, so could its magnetic field be caused the same way as a compass needle’s? No—above a temperature called the Curie point, the magnetic domains are disrupted. The earth’s core at its coolest region is about 3400–4700°C (6100–8500°F), much hotter than the Curie points of all known substances.
But in 1820, the Danish physicist H.C. Ørsted discovered that an electric current produces a magnetic field. Without this, there could be no electric motors. So could an electric current be responsible for the earth’s magnetic field? Electric motors have a power source, but electric currents normally decay almost instantly once the power source is switched off (except in superconductors). So how could there be an electric current inside the earth, without a source?
The great creationist physicist Michael Faraday answered this question in 1831 with his discovery that a changing magnetic field induces an electric voltage, the basis of electrical generators.
Imagine the earth soon after creation with a large electrical current in its core. This would produce a strong magnetic field. Without a power source, this current would decay. Thus the magnetic field would decay too. As decay is change, it would induce a current, lower but in the same direction as the original one.
So we have a decaying current producing a decaying field which generates a decaying current … If the circuit dimensions are large enough, the current would take a while to die out. The decay rate can be accurately calculated, and is always exponential. The electrical energy doesn’t disappear—it is turned into heat, a process discovered by the creationist physicist James Joule in 1840.
This is the basis of Dr Barnes’ model.

Reference

In otherwords, this argument is based on there being no energy source within the earth to power the magnetic field.

But there is. it's called RADIOACTIVITY!

I can't help but notice that all the sources you cite - H.C. Ørsted, Michael Faraday and James Joule - all come from BEFORE 1896, which is when it was discovered by the French scientist Henri Becquerel while working on phosphorescent materials. Perhaps if you used some MODERN information, you'd get a better view of what's going on.

 

[FFH]

A list of creation scientists who are/have contributed to science

1) Dr. Raymond Damadian - inventor of MRI device

2) Dr. Raymond Jones - CSIRO Gold Medal, detoxified Leucaena for livestock
consumption

3) Dr. Keith Wanser - 48 published papers, seven U.S. patents
(Professor of Physics, Cal State Fullerton)

4) Dr. Russell Humphreys - successful planetary magnetic predictions
(nuclear physicist, Sandia National Laboratories )

5) Dr. Kurt Wise - Ph.D. in paleontology under Stephen J. Gould at Harvard

6) Jules H. Poirier - designer of radar FM altimeter on Apollo Lunar
Landing Module

7) Dr. Sinaseli Tshibwabwa - discovered 7 new species of fish in the Congo

8) Dr. Saami Shaibani - "International Expert" by the US Depts of Labor and
Justice. 100 published articles (B.A. (Hons), M.A., M.Sc., D.Phil, a
physics professor and researcher)

1) (ID) Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III - five-time Nobel nominee
(professor of chemistry at the University of Georgia)

2) (ID) Dr. William S. Harris - $3.5 million in research grants, over 70
scientific papers, Director of the Lipoprotein Research Laboratory at Saint
Luke’s Hospital. Chair in Metabolism and Vascular Biology and is a
Professor of Medicine at the University of Missouri.

Others:

Dr. Emmett L. Williams, Ph.D. Materials Engineering
Dr. David A. Kaufmann, Ph.D. Anatomy
Dr. Glen W. Wolfrom, Ph.D. Ruminant Nutrition
Dr. Theodore P. Aufdemberge, Ph.D. Physical Geography,
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Ph.D. Physics
Dr. George F. Howe, Ph.D. Botany
Dr. Wayne F. Frair, Ph.D. Serology
Dr. John R. Meyer, Ph.D. Zoology
Dr. Robert Goette, Ph.D. Chemistry
Dr. Lane Lester -- Ph.D. in genetics from Purdue University
Dr. Andrew Snelling -- Ph.D. in geology, U. of Sydney
Dr. Don Batten, consultant plant physiologist
Dr. Gary Parker, Ed.D. in Biology/Geology, Ball State University
Dr. John Baumgardner, Los Alamos Laboratories
Dr. Donald B. DeYoung, Ph.D., Physics, Grace College, Winona Lake, Indiana
Dr. Eric Norman, Ph.D, Biochemistry, Texas A&M University
Dr. Clifford A. Wilson - Archaeologist, Author of "Crash go the Chariots"
Michael Oard, MS, Atmospheric Science, U. of Washington, meteorologist
Keyoshi Takahashi, Ph.D., Botany - has had research published in Nature.
Dr. Andy McIntosh, Reader in Combustion Theory at Leeds U., U.K.

Dr. George Marshall, Ph.D., Ophthalmic Science, U of Glasgow, Scotland
chartered biologist, member of the Institute of Biology
Dr. Danny Faulkner -- Ph.D. Astronomy, Indiana University, Associate
Professor, U. of South Carolina, Lancaster
Dr. David Menton, Associate Professor of Anatomy, Washington University
School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
Prof. Maciej Giertych, Ph.D.(Toronto), D.Sc.(Poznan), head of the Genetics
Dept. of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Dendrology, Kornik,
Poland.
Dr. James Allan, M.Sc.Agric., PhD., retired senior lecturer in the Dept. of
Genetics, Univ. of Stellenbosch, South Africa
Dr. Andre Eggen, Ph.D. in animal genetics from the Federal Institute of
Technology in Switzerland, research scientist for the French government
Dr. Brian Stone, Ph.D., Head of the Dept. of Mechanical Engineering,
U. of Western Australia
Dr. Donald Chittick, Ph.D. in physical chemistry, Oregon State U.,
Associate Professor of Chemistry , U. of Puget Sound
Dr. Giuseppe Sermonti, Ph.D., geneticist and microbiologist, has served as
Professor of Genetics at U. of Palermo & U. of Perugia
Dr. Andre Eggen, Institute Nationale de la Agrinomique of France, working
on genetic defect in cows known as the Bulldog gene defect.
Dave Phillips, M.S., physical anthropology, California State U., working on
Ph.D. in paleontology
Jonathan D. Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M. -- Ph.D. in Chemistry from Victoria
univeristy of Wellington, New Zealand. New Zealand chess champion.

Dr. Jack Cuozzo, orthodontist (DDS, University of Pennsylvania and MS in
Oral Biology, Loyola University of Chicago) and an original researcher of
Neanderthals, is the author of Buried Alive. This book sets forth the
thesis that human craniofacial structures continue to change with aging and
that Neanderthals were humans who lived to be hundreds of years old
(post-flood). If anything, humans are devolving.

Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo, physiologist for the human engine of the Gossamer
Condor and Gossamer Albatross man-powered flight projects (reported in the
National Geographic), received his doctorate from the University of Iowa.
Dr. Mastropaolo does not believe evolution qualifies as science.

Dr. Robert A. Herrmann -- Professor of Mathematics, U. S. Naval Academy
http://mathweb.mathsci.usna.edu/faculty/herrmannra/
http://www.serve.com/herrmann/main.html

Dr. Ian Macreadie -- molecular biology and microbiology researcher,
Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of
Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
(CSIRO)

Dr. Felix Konotey-Ahulu, M.D., FRCP, DTMH, world authority on sickle-cell
disease, 25 years' experience as physician, clinical geneticist and
consultant in Ghana and subsequently in London. Visiting professor at
Howard University College of Medicine in Washington, and honorary
consultant to its Centre for Sickle Cell Disease. Author of 643-page
monograph "The Sickle Cell Disease Patient", Macmillan, 1991.

Dr. AwSwee-Eng, Ph.D., former Associate Professor of Biochemistry, Univ. of
Singapore, head of Dept. of Nuclear Medicine & Director of Clinical
Research , Singapore General Hospital, Author of about 30 technical papers
in biochemistry and nuclear medicine.

John K. Reed ¨ Principal Engineer, Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
(1999-present) ¨ degrees - B.S. geology (Furman Univ.), M.S. geology (Univ.
of Georgia), Ph.D. geology (Univ. of South Carolina) ¨ other qualifications
- Senior Production Geologist (Sun Exploration and Production Co., Houston,
1982-1988); Research Asst. Prof. (Earth Sciences and Resources Institute,
Univ. of South Carolina, 1988-1991); Exploration Manager (PetraTex, Dallas,
1991-1992) Partner (Strata Consulting Services, Dallas, 1992); Sr.
Scientist (Westinghouse Savannah River Company, 1992-1999); ten articles in
CRS Quarterly; 14 articles in secular scientific journals, Associate Editor
for Geology for CRS Quarterly.


From the past:

Kepler -- Laws of planetary motion.
Francis Bacon -- contributed to formalization of scientific method
Linnaeus -- classification
John Ray -- Founder of biological science
Robert Boyle -- Founder of modern chemistry
Sir Isaac Newton -- gravity, optics, calculus
Blaise Pascal -- mathematics, calculating machine, air pressure
Charles Babbage -- invented "difference engine," designed computer
Gregor Mendel -- first studies of heredity
James Joule -- physics, inc. beginning of thermodynamics
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin -- Physics
Michael Faraday -- Physics
John Dalton -- chemistry
Louis Pasteur -- immunization, disproof of spontaneous generation
Sir John Herschel -- mathematician and astronomer, called the theory "the
law of higgledy-pigglety"
James Clerk Maxwell -- physicist, developed theory of electromagnetism
Adam Sedgwick -- geologist
Andrew Murray -- entomologist
Richard Owen -- coined the term "dinosaur"
Louis Agassiz, founder of modern glacial geology
Werner von Braun -- Leader of early US space program (Creation 16(2))
James Irwin -- astronaut, walked on the moon
A.E. Wilder-Smith (deceased)- 3 earned doctorates, master of seven
languages, UN advisor

Reference

 

[Tiberius]

Addendum: Answering sceptical objections

Exponential Decay?

Thomas Barnes, who first pointed out magnetic field decay as a problem for evolutionists, was a specialist in electromagnetism and wrote some well-regarded textbooks on the subject. But most of his critics are crassly ignorant of the subject.

First of all, Barnes used an obselete model of the earth, which isn't the best way to get accurate results.

Secondly, he failed to take experimental uncertainties into account.

Thirdly, his degree is HONORARY, not eraned, and is from a CHRISTIAN school. The wiki article on honorary degrees say, "An honorary degree is an academic degree awarded to an individual as a decoration, rather than as the result of matriculating and studying for several years. ... Usually the degree is conferred with great pomp and ceremony as a way of honoring a famous or distinguished visitor's valuable contribution to society."

So, in otherwords, the people at this Christian school said, "Well, he's said a lot of things which support what we want to believe in, so we'll give him an honorary degree. That way, he'll sound even more legitimate."

Very misleading, I think.

THIS page goes into more information.

Another important point is that these calculations point to a maximum age of the earth. Even if the sceptics were right about a linear decay, it would still point to an upper limit of 90 million years, and this is far too young for evolution.
A final point is that if the decay really were linear, we haven’t got much time left before the earth’s magnetic field disappears!

This is again failing to take into account the radioactivity of the earth's core and the reversals of the magnetic field throughout history.

Multipole components of the field

Some sceptics have claimed:

‘… only the dipole-field strength has been “decaying” for a century and a half … the strength of the nondipole field (about 15% of the total field) has increased over the same time span, so that the total field has remained almost constant. Barnes’ assumption of a steady decrease in the field’s strength throughout history is also irreconcilable, of course, with the paleomagnetic evidence of fluctuations and reversals [in the geomagnetic field] (Ecker, 1990, 105)’
​

The ‘authority’ turns out to be an anti-creationist dictionary compiled by an anti-Christian librarian with, as far as we are aware, no scientific training! Dr Humphreys answered in July 2001:

‘Litany in the Church of Darwin: “The non-dipole part of the earth’s magnetic field shall save us!” That is indeed an old and dismissive evolutionist argument. Tom Barnes discussed it in his papers during the 1970s. I discussed it near the end of my paper “A Physical Mechanism for Reversals of the Earth’s Magnetic Field During the Flood”.6
‘Over 90% of the field is dipolar (two poles, one north and one south), but the rest of it is non-dipolar, or multipolar, such as the quadrupole part (two north and two south poles), the octopole part (four north and four south poles), etc. Just imagine the fields from bar magnets tied together at various angles to one another.
‘In the 1970s, the evolutionists claimed that the very large energy (units are Joules or ergs) disappearing from the dipole part of the field is not really converted into heat, but is somehow being stored in the non-dipole part, later to be resurrected as a new dipole in the reverse direction. Some papers showed that the average field intensity (units are Teslas or Gauss) of some of the non-dipole parts is increasing slightly.7
‘But field intensity is not energy. To get the total energy in a component, one must square the intensity in a small volume around each point, multiply by the volume and a certain constant, and add up all the resulting energies throughout all space. The non-dipole intensities fall off (with increasing distance from the earth’s center) much faster than the dipole intensity, so the non-dipole parts are not able to contribute nearly as much energy to the total as the dipole part. That means the small increase in some non-dipole field intensities does not appear to represent nearly enough energy to compensate for the enormous energy lost year by year from the dipole part.
‘I have my doubts that the paper referred to actually proves the point the evolutionists want to make, that “non-dipole energy gain compensates for dipole energy loss”. Not only does my eyeball estimate above disagree, but the theory of reversals in my 1990 ICC paper disagrees [As shown below, Dr Humphreys no longer has his doubts—he (and anyone who checks the numbers) now knows that the evolutionist claim is fallacious]. It says that some energy will go into non-dipole components, but not nearly enough to compensate for the energy loss from the dipole part. The reversal process I propose is not efficient; it dissipates a large amount of energy as heat. I discussed this, including non-dipole parts by implication, in the second-to-last section (“The Field’s Energy Has Always Decreased”) of my Impact article on the ICR website.
‘As further evidence, I used the authoritative International Geomagnetic Reference Field data—more than 2500 numbers representing the earth’s magnetic field over the whole twentieth century. The bottom line is this:
‘In the most accurately recorded period, from 1970 to 2000, the total (dipole plus non-dipole) energy in the earth’s magnetic field has steadily decreased by 1.41±0.16%. At that rate, the field would lose at least half its energy every 1500 years, give or take a century or so. This supports the creationist model that the field has always been losing energy—even during magnetic polarity reversals during the Genesis flood—ever since God created it about 6000 years ago.
‘The evolutionists, on the other hand, have no workable, mathematically-analyzable theory of reversals. They are claiming that whatever process actually caused the reversals was 100% efficient—that the total energy in their hoped-for future dipole field will be equal to the total energy which was in the dipole field at its last peak (about the time of Christ). That is, their faith in a billion-year age for the field requires them to believe that each cycle is resurrected phoenix-like from the ashes of the previous cycle—with no losses.
‘Put another way, the Church of Darwin requires them to believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics—that all forms of energy devolve down to heat—does not apply to planetary magnetic fields. Sound familiar?’
​

Later, Dr Humphreys published ‘The Earth’s magnetic field is still losing energy’, CRSQ 39(1)1–11, March 2002, which explains the above and more in detail (see full article, and his Creation Matters layman’s summary—The Earth’s Magnetic Field: Closing a Loophole in the Case for its Youth, March/April 2002—both off site).

Reference

Have a look at this page, which addresses these issues.

Now, one last thing....

Back in post #26 of this thread, I commented on how you seem to love posting huge slabs that you cut and paste from other sites in an effort to prove your position, then claim that there's no need to post such things when I post a lot showing why your sources are wrong.

So what's the deal? Why is it that it's okay for you to post a lot but there's no need for me to? Your position is not supportable, face it. You've never provided any evidence which I have not shown to be false.

So I issue a challenge:

Either you believe that my rebuttal of your claims are wrong, in which case I challenge you to show me how they are wrong, or your claims are worthless, in which I ask that you admit so on this thread.

Please do one or the other.

But I bet you won't.

 

[s2a]

*Sheesh*

I would suggest that this particular thread be moved and classified within a contextual/topical sub-category, either within "Science vs. Religion", or "Creation vs, Evolution" (though the former is more apropos).

FFH instigated this thread, and presented his initial (referenced/linked) arguments that he felt lent support to his premised assertion ("The earth is 13,000 years old...").

When initially confronted with compelling rebuttal evidences to the contrary that such referenced claims presented no sustainable scientific merit...FFH offered only special pleading by means of abject incredulity and personal ignorance (essentially arguing that "I'm no expert, and neither are you...so my sources are just as good as yours"). FFH conceded early on in this thread that his primary support of his claim is predicated upon faith alone, and not upon any credible preponderance of scientific evidence...regardless of quoted source.

At this point, FFH's very own introduced OP has traversed beyond any aspects of religious (faith-based) debate, and forayed into challenging the conclusions of scientific understanding (albeit while asserting that the OP is founded upon a personal faith, not any agreeably estimable or scientific fact).

You really can't have it both ways in this sort of discussion/debate.

If one wish's to employ science as foundation of a claim, then one must be prepared to answer/support the methodology/evidence that is predicate to that claim.

If one wish's to employ faith as foundation of a claim, then one must be prepared to answer/provide the (specific) religious texts that are predicate to support of that claim.

NOTHING can be more impotently ineffective in any such discussion/debate that some OP's progenitor's efforts to present "evidence" that they admit that they neither understand, nor are capable of defending in any astute or pointed fashion.
It's just another form of testified faith..."He (the "expert") said it. I believe it. That settles it".
That's not debate. It's testimonial certification by means of palpably acceptable ignorance. It's a validation of an "argument from authority" by means of a special pleading of personal ignorance of the subject matter (ie, "I may not understand it, but it seems to validate my core beliefs, therefore it can not be false." Um...bunk)

FFH has essentially ignored all pointed posts illustrating that the presented "Doctor" of "expertise" is dubiously credentialed at best, and most likely uncritically reviewed by any substantive peers at the very least. These observances do not constitute ad homiem attacks--they address the self-claimed credibility/authority of a cited "expert". It's not unfair to question either the motives or claims of accreditation of any individual that cites as much as lending authority to their position.

When extraordinary claims are demonstrably invalidated as being either specious or false, it doesn't matter whether or not individual forum contributors can provide bona fides as "experts" in their own right and standing. Einstein forwarded his brilliant theory of Relativity, yet stubbornly refused to accept any validated concepts of quantum physics for over 3 decades. One "expert" does not a compelling case make either for or against a singular proposition/claim. An overwhelming consensus/conclusion, as derived from multitudinous objective and separate sources, serves a much more compelling argument.

Newton was a genius in his time. He proffered some extraordinary observations and conclusions, many of which have been sustainably and substantively been "proven" as true...but a few had their flaws, and have been positively evidenced to be in error. I am neither genius nor expert, but I can most certainly and reliably support the corrections of Newton's errancies within my own understandings of available and extant contemporary scientific explanations.

C'mon.

Where is this going?

Is this thread about validating personal faith, or about debating the merits of scientific understandings and conclusions as being reasonably acceptable and presented fact?

Tactical (or necessitated) evasion and diversion are not conducive to any sort of profitable or earnest debate.

 

[FFH]

s2a, you and TIberius have done an excellent job in refuting my/these postition(s)/claims. As I gain a better understanding of scientific facts, which i feel support Biblical creation and young earth theories, I will then begin to defend my position, but for now all I can do is present my case via "the experts" in their respective fields.

I have my own thoughts on creation and young earth theories, but am not prepared to speak out as of yet.

Tiberious seems to have a good working knowledge of the cosmos and it's designs and I welcome his comments, but I would only convolute the issue if I were to speak out on this subject...

For now I will only present the creation scientists point of view and then review your comments and defend my postion as I gain a better understanding scientifically, but for now I need to stay out of the picture, until I personally gain a better understanding of these theories, concepts and facts.

I am reviewing both sides respectfully, especially because there are LDS posters here who don't buy into the young earth thories, which I'm surprised more don't.

I haven't read anything, so far, that would pursuade me in that direction...

I don't see this as creation vs science, but science validating creation and young earth theries and didn't forsee this thread heading in this direction when I placed it here, so if a mod thinks it best placed into the creation vs science forum then that's fine with me.

Respectfully,

Mike

 

[FFH]

I need to interject this scripture, which applies to the opening post of this thread, which I came across, just recently, when studying this subject.

Psalms 90: 4

4 For a thousand years in thy (the Lord's) sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

 

[SoyLeche]

I need to interject this scripture, which applies to the opening post of this thread, which I came across, just recently, when studying this subject.

Psalms 90: 4

4 For a thousand years in thy (the Lord's) sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

There's that pesky "as" word again

Also, hasn't this already been pointed out: is a thousand years a day or a couple of hours (a "watch in the night") to God? It can't be both can it?