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.
And whenever evolution is proven wrong just repeat your little mantra and bury your head deeper in the sand - oyyy!!!
The atheist FReepers are among the most nasty people I come across. Second only to Roman Catholic FReepers, who relish attacking Christians who aren’t members of their denomination.
It's all a question of who your God really is. But this I know for it is written, it was Satan that started the fall of man and brought death to the world and maybe the universe with the words, "Yea, hath God said?" casting doubt on the word of God. And it continues to this day. Those who do not believe the Biblical creation have simply replaced the loving God of the universe with a random god called time by which everything came together by chance. Probably the most preposterous belief of all.
Right except that us YEC tend to believe that God did not lie to us in His Inspired Word - The Bible.
The 6,000 years comes from adding the OT lineages of approx 4004 years from Adam upto Jesus.
The 6 days comes from a literal reading of Genesis - in other words - exactly as it is written without any metaphors, similes or analogies.
Oh, so sorry for the misunderstanding. I was referring to others, not you by any means.
If you really want an answer to that question (which I doubt), you’ll do some research and learn that there’s a great deal of H2O beneath the earth’s mantle — more than enough to cover the highest mountains (which probably weren’t mountains during the flood).
Part 1 or 6 each about 10 minutes long to explain Dr. Walt Brown PhD hydroplate theory [ see my homepage for more links].
Fountains of the Deep - the Flood of Noah; Earthquakes; 2 video series by Pastor Kevin Lea of Port Orchard Calvary Church in Port Orchard, OR [available on youtube videos] http://www.youtube.com/user/CalvaryChurchPO#p/c/11/XXQKSv5o_Po
BTW fishtank thanks for the post!
Just pinging you folks along to another interesting thread...
Ok so please show me where in the scientific theory you are allowed to ignore and discard scientific evidence which trumps your theory?
Old ages are a ridiculous construct. 101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
His inspired word never instructed you to add anything to come up with an answer to your worldly curiosity.
There is also no assurance that the “6 days of creation” translate into 24 hour days.
There are plenty of Biblical citations stating time is not a constraint to God. “...a day is like a thousand years..” etc.
What are your criteria for which passages are literal and which are figurative?
Bet I can present a few Catholic citations you’d rather read as figurative!
thank you.
core samples
Many thousands of experiments have shown evolution to be a fact for which which Darwin's theory is the best explanation.
The huge expansion of knowledge in the field of biology is directly attributable to utilization of the theories that explain the facts and enable accurate prediction.
Creationism in the meanwhile has produced nothing of any value.
(1) the mountains were lifted up
(2) the water went underground
Why would it mean anything different before the Sun than after? Before the sun was created it ALSO says "evening and morning, another day." What aspect of the Hebrew text leads you to believe it must be something else? There is no good reason from the text to adopt any other meaning than a 24 hour day.
Except that Genesis uses the word ‘day’ uses a time period of light and dark in connection with the word ‘day’.
IF you allow tha book of Genesis to be discredited, or held up as untrue, then that opens the door to the rest of the Bible.
SCIENCE says that three Hebrew children thrown into a fire will die, yet they did not.
SCIENCE says that dead bones will stay that way, yet Ezekiel witnessed the re-fleshing of bones into an army.
SCIENCE says a burning bush will, well burn, it did not.
SCIENCE says that a man dead 3 days will saty that way, yet Jeasus rose on that 3rd day.
How for will you let SCIENCE push you away from the word of God?
For the record, Science is a very useful method to try to interpret the physical world. It has many uses and fields. But I’ll go on the record here and say the Theory (THEORY) of evolution, of a billions of years old earth are two non-starters. They are just theories. I’ll trust the Bible.
G L: “There are plenty of Biblical citations stating time is not a constraint to God. “...a day is like a thousand years..””
The only one I’m aware of is 2nd Peter 3:8. My understanding of this scripture is intended to warn true-believers about his soon return.
The reason we hear so many discuss the rapture and end-times is the creation week appears to be reflected in mankind’s true time limit in this present world. The last [7th] 1000 years equivocate to the final day of creation. When everything is declared good and perfect and then God rested. You can believe whatever you want of course, and by no means do I think anything yec should be used as a litmus test for true faith. Only God and you know the condition of your heart and sincerely held beliefs.
G L: “What are your criteria for which passages are literal and which are figurative?
Bet I can present a few Catholic citations you’d rather read as figurative!”
I bet you can too. I still do not see anything in Genesis but literal statements.
I was raised catholic but it just didn’t stick - you know all the parts where the pope or the church claims to be able to trump God’s Word. Have you read the warning in the last book and chapter about not adding to nor subtracting from God’s Holy Words?
There is no good reason from the text to insist that a ‘yom’ without a Sun - evening and morning no less - was exactly 24 hours.
A morning and an evening without a Sun doesn't sound like a literal “day” to anyone thinking logically.
“Creationism in the meanwhile has produced nothing of any value.”
Well er nothing of any value to which you might read and/or admit. Listening to only one-side of a story is fundamental in Brainwashing 101.
Also evolution has still not produced one single bona fide transitional fossil yet what was it Gould said?
The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote:
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution
Further on evolution.
I am a happy owner of an 8 1/2 foot Yellow Anaconda. His name is Ducky. He has, near his tail (yes snakes have tails), spurs that look like little ‘claws’. If you were to look at his skeleton, thos spurs are connected to small bones one could call ‘vestigial legs’.
As a small lad, I was steeped in evolutionary ‘lore’. I could have and would have told you that is evidence that snakes used to have legs.
I told my wife about this, and we talked some, about it, then decided to see what the Bible, specifically, Genesis might say. You know the story I presume, Eve, the serpent, she eats of the tree of knowledge of good and evil based on the serpents lies. Here it is:
Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
So, Genesis was written by Moses, inspired by God. I would imagine that Moses knew little if anything at all about the idea of “evolution’, yet he wrote of a major change in form for the serpent - “upon thy belly shalt thou go”.
This was Gods curse to the serpent. Why would God curse it to ‘belly-going’ unless it didn’t currently do so, the serpent HAD legs, God cursed them away.
Moses wrote of a change of form that could be labelled ‘evolution’, not knowing anything about evolution, but rather knowing it was God that did that.
Further, Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Notice it says ‘after their kind’. Meaning that like kinds produced like kinds. Same thing later in Genesis about the land animals.
God did not say that He created a few ‘basic’ animals, telling them to change forms and multiply. Nope.
Adaptation is real (look at all the different types of dogs), but evolution is not (dogs do not, cannot produce birds, even over millions of years)
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.