Evidence for God from Science

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I shall pull out a website that refutes the proof of the changes being in the form of the different polarity along the ocean floor....and also shows how flawed the plate techtonics theory is as well.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I shall pull out a website that refutes the proof of the changes being in the form of the different polarity along the ocean floor....and also shows how flawed the plate techtonics theory is as well.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1260669

Over the past 140 years, direct measurements of Earth's magnetic field show its steady and rapid decline in strength. This decay pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that a decaying electrical current inside Earth produces the magnetic field. If this is correct, then just 20,000 years ago the electrical current would have been so vast that Earth's structure could not have survived the heat produced. This implies Earth could not be older than 20,000 years.a [To understand why Earth's magnetic field does not flip, as is commonly taught, see “Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor” on page 100.]

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1816924

Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor. At a few places along the Mid-Oceanic Ridge, magnetic patterns on one side of the ridge are almost a mirror image of those on the other side. The plate tectonic theory gained wide acceptance in the 1960s when this surprising discovery was misinterpreted.

Some people proposed that these variations were caused by periodic “reversals” of the earth's magnetic poles, although there is no theoretical understanding of how that could happen. Supposedly, over millions of years, molten material rises at the ridge, solidifies, and then moves in opposite directions away from the ridge. As the magma solidifies, its magnetic orientation locks in the orientation of the earth's magnetic field at the time. Thus, a record of past “flips” of earth's magnetic field is preserved in the rocks at different distances from the ridge.




Figure 45: Magnetic Anomalies. Notice the wide fluctuations in magnetic intensity as one moves across the Mid-Oceanic Ridge. The so-called “reversals” are simply regions of lower magnetic intensity. Why should the intensity usually be greatest along the crest of the ridge?


That explanation is wrong, as detailed magnetic maps clearly show. There are no magnetic reversals on the ocean floor, and no compass would reverse direction if brought near an alleged “reversed” band. However, as one moves across the Mid-Oceanic Ridge, magnetic intensities fluctuate, as shown in Figure 45. Someone merely drew a line through these fluctuations and labeled everything below this average intensity as a “reversal.” The false but widespread impression exists that these slight deviations below the average represent a reversed magnetic field millions of years ago. Calling these fluctuations “reversals” causes one to completely miss a more likely explanation for the magnetic anomalies.

Although textbooks show these so-called “reversals” as smooth bands paralleling the Mid-Oceanic Ridge, there is nothing smooth about them. Some “bands” are even perpendicular to the ridge axis—the opposite of what plate tectonics predicts. Also, the perpendicular “bands” correspond to fracture zones.9 The hydroplate theory offers an explanation for these magnetic anomalies.

On the continents, rapid but limited changes in earth's magnetic field have occurred. Lava cools at known rates, from the outside of the flow toward its center. Magnetic particles floating in lava align themselves with the earth's magnetic field. When the lava cools and solidifies, that orientation becomes fixed. Knowing this cooling rate and measuring the changing direction of the magnetic fields throughout several solidified lava flows, we can see that at one time the earth's magnetic field changed rapidly—by up to 6 degrees per day for several days.10

Read the rest of the book, it's interesting...difficult at times of course.


I don't believe that everything he says is true (I think the Bible mentions a hydrosphere which he doesn't go for)....but he does have some good stuff.

But the sun is known to flip magnetic polarity every 12 days or so, and Saturn's poles also flip periodically - so it's not like we don't have other examples from which to draw upon.

Where did I say they all agree with me? I said they disagree with you.

And apparently, you know nothing about planet formation, because a star never has the same composition as its planets. if it did, it wouldn't be a star, it would be a giant planet.

The Sun contains 99.85% of all the matter in the Solar System. The planets, which condensed out of the same disk of material that formed the Sun, contain only 0.135% of the mass of the solar [url]system.http://www.solarviews.com/eng/solarsys.htm[/url]