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 ...
” 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.”
Penguins feed in the water yet they have the ability to walk?
“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.”
Mammals like the whale that feed in the water have fins. Why do penguins have wings instead of fins?
Penguins can’t breed in the water.
“Mammals like the whale that feed in the water have fins. Why do penguins have wings instead of fins?”
Lol. Why do most snakes not have legs? They are terrestrial!
And I'm wondering why - when both fish and monkeys were given the ability to swim - the fish had his ability to climb trees taken away, but monkeys didn't.
And why - when both seaturtles and ducks were given the ability to lay eggs - the seaturtle had his ability to fly taken away, but the duck didn't.
And why - when...
Hint: No abilities were "given" or "taken away" - they developed - in response to differing environmental pressures, and from different starting points - in different ways.
Regards,
And you won’t.
I can’t explain it. I think that’s why our relationship with God is based on faith.
Look at the field of science. Has there ever been some massive errors in scientific beliefs?
Of course there has. The earth isn’t flat. The universe doesn’t revolve around the earth. Even today there are some theories that everyone doesn’t accept.
Will the age of the universe be revised downward in time? I don’t know.
What I believe is that one day I’ll get to ask my redeemer to explain things to me face to face.
I don’t believe that Moses wrote the first few books of the Bible to mislead future generations.
He was chosen by God to deliver the Children of Israel out of Egypt.
Against all odds, he, one man, was blessed by God and achieved his assigned task.
I have faith.
Okay, satisfied?
Regards,
What?! Because you can't explain it?! Because you haven't studied (and understood) genetics and astrophysics, you reject the painstakingly documented evidence and logical conclusions of geneticists and astrophysicists - conclusions which are constantly being validated (though also sometimes modified) by new discoveries every month?
Because, to you, everything seems so confusing and complicated, you choose to completely abandon scientific reasoning and resort to non-evidence-based "faith" in the theological posturings of Bronze Age tribespeople?
What a shame!
Regards,
As I stated in my post, which you either didn’t read or couldn’t quite grasp, settled science isn’t always that settled.
So go ahead and get all pissy on me. When you come to your senses, study up on issues of the day, and realize that there is generally descent within the scientific community, and today’s core belief at times change to the ones held by the minority for some time.
If you didn’t know this, you know a lot less than you think you do.
I focussed on that one statement of yours - which really irritated me. That was poor form on my part. Sorry if I offended you.
So go ahead and get all pissy on me.
Yes, sometimes I do overly enjoy attacking a poorly-worded statement. It sounded a lot like that familiar refrain heard from Creationists to the effect of "Science has changed its standpoint so often in the past six hundred years [thank goodness for that!] that it has lost all credibility," and "It's all so complicated and confusing [read: to me, who flunked 8th-grade science] that it can't be true." (Disclaimer: I don't wish to imply that you, specifically, belong to that ilk.)
When you come to your senses, study up on issues of the day, and realize that there is generally descent within the scientific community, [...]
Yes, I'm well aware of the existence of dissent in the scientific community - but, in most cases, it seems to me like Creationists exaggerate its significance - like kids complaining that, because Mom and Pop sometimes aren't always in total agreement, they (the kids) know better.
The politicization of Science is a genuine issue (catchword: AGW).
In short: I'm sorry for the cheap shot and admit to sometimes being overly contentious.
Regards,
God was practicing before he made Hawaiians.
I am overly contentious as well.
As for my wording, it’s just fine by me even now.
As for if it’s up to your standards, I don’t, and I seriously question if anyone else does?
It wasn’t my wording and one of us is honestly enough to realize it. You’re just annoyed I won’t sign on to the God of Science program.
Not gonna happen chum.
I am overly contentious as well.
Well, the wording in that last post to you was not up to par. At least we can agree on that, so I’ve corrected it a bit.
- - -
As for my wording (in my first post to you), it’s just fine by me even now.
As for if it’s up to your standards, I don’t care, and I seriously question if anyone else does?
It wasn’t my wording and one of us is honest enough to admit it. You’re just annoyed I won’t sign on to the God of Science program.
Not gonna happen chum.
Thanks for the thumbnail psychogram, Chum! Didn't know that you were a telepath!
I work as a Copy Editor - "wording" is my life. I have no problem with your "Invisible Friend in the Sky" program.
Regards,
Why would I care what you do for a living?
Most children grow out of the correcting others phase by mid puberty. It’s unfortunate you’re still harboring the juvenile perception others are as obsessed with perfect English as you are.
Unable to grasp simple concepts, you branch off into correcting others to compensate.
Your 600 year ploy was idiotic. In the last 100 years there have been theories that were once considered sound that have had serious challenges.
What we know is that settled science isn’t all that settled. This isn’t a denial of science as much as a reasoned acceptance of reality.
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.