Bane

Peez and a few others are dealing with a particularly obnoxious creationist at theforce.net. Peez and SnowDog have the biology\evolution questions covered.

He posted some research by a D. Russell Humphreys about how creationists predicted the strength of the magnetics fields of Uranus and Neptune more accurately than evolutionists?

Biologists are doing physics research now?

And of course all this wonderful info is in the bible proving that the earth is only 6000 years old. The research paper makes these claims.

Darth_Brooks was challenged to provide some evidence of creationist research and this is what he came up with.

<a href="http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=6682132&page=10" target="_blank">Theforce.net</a>

(Long post at the bottom)

Anyone with advanced physics knowledge would be nice to have in there.

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: Bane ]</p>

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

He's full of shit. It's a lot of supposistion, for starters, and a claim that the earth's magnetic field would be 18 gauss 6000 years ago is ludicrous. In fact, given the own 5% per centurey, and assuming 6000 years creation, we would have a magnectic field of about 22 gauss--20% more than what the paper claims. Ampere's law would require a current of 16711 amps for a magnetic field of that magnitude on earth's surface--not the billions required by the paper. Also, they claim an error of "only" 25% as being acceptable, which is utter bullshit.

The claim that the moon once had a strong magnetic field (the rocks on the moon having features indicating such a field) is refuted by the theory that the moon once was part of the earth (I believe this is still a theory, but I'm not sure.)

This is the stuff off the top of my head. I'll print a copy and talk to my physics prof, see what I can pull up.

Bane

I gathered it was. To me it looks as if they are extrapolating their(the ICR) own conclusions on to the data\research of other physicists. I guess the guy has had his weak arguments against evolution refuted(by Peez and SnowDog) enough now that it is time try a new approach. Attack physics!

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: Bane ]</p>

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Of course, I'm just an undergrad, so I may have had some mistakes. Which is why I'll try and see if I can nab a prof and find out about this.

Bane

That's more than what I am. Thanks!

I almost feel like saying don't bother though as even if you refute him he'll pretend he's still a genius and act like he's destroying your arguments. He's a randman clone.

beausoleil

I'm not sure what you mean by this. However, here's something of an overview

<a href="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/geolsci/edu/students/planet/student/work/magrev/moonmag.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ucl.ac.uk/geolsci/edu/students/planet/student/work/magrev/moonmag.htm</a>

Our best current model is that the moon formed as the result of an impactor (estimated to be about Mars sized) hitting the proto-Earth within the first 100 to 150 million years of solar system history. The theory explains oxygen isotope agreement between the Earth and Moon and lunar depletion in siderophile and volatile elements, among other things.

The Moon used to have a strong dipole field (when the Mare basalts crystallised) linked to a molten core, but the core cooled and solidified, extinguishing the field. The Moon's core cooled faster than the Earth's because the Moon is much smaller.

The stuff at the bottom of the 'theforce' link is beyond argument, but it is interesting he trusts scientists to measure the magnetism of lunar basalts, but not their ages (which are all greater than 3 Ga). Since God has to create the rocks with radionuclides looking like &gt;3 billion years of radioactive decay, why shouldn't he just create them with magnetic fields too instead of mucking about with water (or whatever the guy is rambling about)?

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: beausoleil ]</p>

RufusAtticus

This is more approprate to the Science forum.

fando

I think my brain just melted.

fando

I did Astronomy in college. I read that post and was almost tempted to join in the fun. However, I've had to put up with that kind of nonesense several times in the past and am getting tired of correcting people. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: fando ]</p>

beausoleil

(My mistake!)

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: beausoleil ]</p>