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