Posted on 05/08/2015 9:54:45 AM PDT by fishtank
More secular confusion about the moon’s former magnetic field
by D. Russell Humphreys
A recent paper by Clèment Suavet et al.1 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that uniformitarian scientists, who assume the world is billions of years old, are still very puzzled about the moon’s magnetic field. They don’t understand why it was formerly strong but now doesn’t exist, and how it could exist in the first place.2
The moon’s magnetic data fit creation science theories very well. Suavet and his colleagues have carefully analyzed the magnetism of two basalt samples brought from the moon by Apollo 11 astronauts (figure 1). The rocks became magnetized in an ancient magnetic field of about 0.69 (±0.16) Gauss. That’s a bit stronger than the earth’s magnetic field today (0.6 Gauss at the poles, 0.3 Gauss at the equator). They cite a very conservative lower limit for the moon rocks’ magnetizing field strength of 0.13 Gauss, but I don’t see the need for such caution, except perhaps to mollify colleagues who want the moon’s early field to be weaker.
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
I’ll have to ask the Designer about that. Might take a few eons for me to get around to it, though. If you’re really interested, you might try to figure out how to make sure you’re on friendly terms before you meet Him, and thus afford yourself the opportunity to pose the question on your own behalf.
Besides which, if you’re not on friendly terms with Him, I won’t be able to communicate His answer to you once I get it.
So for that and other reasons, please get to know Him yourself. He’s really a nice Person and wants to be your friend, but he won’t force Himself on you.
I would say "form follows function" and not get baited into a theological debate with a fundamentalist atheist.
“Umm, bats are gliders “
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
Not nice to make up nonsense when you have no facts.
The moon and the earth were once a single object.
No facts? Yes, I shouldn’t have called them “gliders”, but the fact is that they don’t fly in the same manner as birds:
“Bats and birds, the only two vertebrate fliers on Earth, use their wings very differently”
They both fly by flapping their wings, but use the upstroke of the flap in different ways, with bats flicking their wings upward and backward unlike birds to gain lift.
“Bats seem to be mostly specialized for agile and maneuverable flight in complex environments,” Geoffrey Spedding, a University of Southern California professor of aerospace and mechanical engineering and one of the study’s authors, said by e-mail.
In broad generalities, bats are characterized by a darting, sharply turning and maneuvering flight. This can be seen as they wheel about catching insects, or flit from flower to flower,” Spedding added.
So the point about their wings serving different purposes and not being directly comparable in terms of efficiency stands.
If time (as in “space-time”) was part of creation, then time itself did not exist prior to creation. As a result, it is meaningless to attribute *any* length or period of time to God’s existence “prior to” creation (a statement which itself is only a bone thrown to our necessarily time-centered frame of reference).
Why can birds walk but bats can’t?
I do not know anyone who would even think up the idea that chickens were created in the image of man.
Well obviously if a planet once had a magnetic field and now does not, the only possible explanation is that God created the universe.
What kind of question is that?
Why do elephants have tusks but mice don’t?
That is an assumption but not the only possibility. I personally do not believe it to be true except to say that Earth and Moon may once have been part of the same object.
The moon for some reason is unable to hold a charge, kind of like a burned-out capacitor. Leads me to conjecture that the moon experienced some kind of disaster long ago.
“What kind of question is that?”
Bats are mammals. If birds are better at flying than bats, why are they also better walkers than bats?
It’s an interesting question as to why some planets and moons have magnetic fields and others don’t. What is, I think, a more interesting question is: why does the galaxy have a magnetic field?
The only method mainstream scientists propose to generate these fields is via dynamos (and there are some big problems with that hypothesis, since we have mathematical proofs that show dynamos can’t generate sustainable symmetric fields). However, with the galaxy, even if we ignore the problems with dynamos, where would the dynamo be? It can’t be in the center of the galaxy, in a supermassive black hole, or the field would never escape. So what could generate a field on a galactic scale?
“Bats are mammals.”
What does that have to do with your question?
“If birds are better at flying than bats,...”
But we’ve already seen that their methods of flight are for different purposes and therefore not directly comparable. So you can’t say one is “better” than the other.
“why are they also better walkers than bats?”
I’m still not understanding the point of the question. How is any more sensible than asking why mice don’t have tusks?
It doesn’t matter what the question is, for some people the only possible explanation is that God created the universe (or at least everything living thing on Earth) within the last 10,000 or years. Any evidence to the contrary must be wrong, because it disagrees with their literal reading of the Bible. I think such people are loons, albeit largely harmless ones (as long as they’re not allowed to spread their anti-science dreck in science classes as “creation science” - an oxymoron if I ever heard one).
So, what's the sectarian explanation? Because God wanted it that way? Forgive me if I think that makes for a very thin & unsatisfying science book.
The bone structure is similar because humans need to rotate their forearms to manipulate objects and chickens need to rotate their wings to vary lift when in flight. That bone structure makes it possible.
The only relationship I have to chickens, besides breakfast, lunch and dinner, is that we came from the same Creator.
“How is any more sensible than asking why mice don’t have tusks?”
Just wondering why when both birds and bats were given the ability to fly, the bat had his ability to walk taken away but birds didn’t.
Well, I’m not the one who designed them, so I can only speculate. If I had to guess, I would say it probably has something to do with the fact that most birds need to walk in order to feed themselves, while most bats do not.
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.