Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 40) Message-ID: <547@psivax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 10-Jul-85 17:37:48 EDT Article-I.D.: psivax.547 Posted: Wed Jul 10 17:37:48 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 07:40:58 EDT References: <398@iham1.UUCP> Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Distribution: net Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 54 Summary: In article <398@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR > SYSTEM ARE YOUNG. > > 76. Direct measurements of the earth's magnetic field over the > past 140 years show a steady and rapid decline in its > strength. This decay pattern is consistent with the > theoretical view that there is an electrical current > inside the earth which produces the magnetic field. If > this view is correct, then just 25,000 years ago the > electrical current would have been so vast that the > earth's structure could not have survived the heat > produced. This implies that the earth could not be older > than 25,000 years [a]. > This is a hiddeous example of the extrapolation fallacy, the argument *assumes* that the currently observed rate of decay in the magnetic field is valid for the past. This is simply bogus. In fact there is excellent theoretical reason to believe that the current reduction in field strength is a *relatively* recent occurance. This is based on the phenonomen called geo-magnetic reversal, which is the periodic reversal in the polarity of the Earth's magnetic field as recorded in undisturbed volcanic rocks on the ocean floor. Any model of this requires that the field pass through a net zero field on the way to reversal. Thus all the decay of field strength implies is that the Earth is currently heading towards a magnetic reversal! (That is unless it simply means that the field is intrinsically randomly variable!) > > 77. If the earth was initially molten, it would have cooled to > its present condition in much less than 4.6 billion years. > This conclusion holds even after one makes liberal > assumptions on the amount of heat generated by radioactive > decay within the earth [a]. The known temperature pattern > inside the earth is only consistent with a young earth. > I am not sure exactly what the significance of this is supposed to be! Most models I am aware of have the Earth reaching essentially its present condition a *long* time ago, and remining in near equilibrium since then. Thus, I agree, it would have, and *did* cool to its present condition in far less than 4.6 billion years! Where is the problem! -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen