Earth's Magnetic Age: The Achillies Heal of Evolution
by Thomas G. Barnes, D.Sc.
Introduction
There is nothing more devastating to the doctrine
of evolution than the scientific evidence of a young earth age.
That evidence is provided by the rapid depletion of the energy
in the earth's main magnet, its electromagnetic dipole magnet
in the conductive core of the earth. Its electric current is
using up the magnet's energy. The rate of energy consumption
is now known. From that information and a reasonable limit on
the maximum plausible initial energy one can show that the earth's
magnetic age is limited to thousands of years, not the billions
claimed by evolutionary scientists.
A search of the technical literature in 1970 provided
two important clues to this explanation of the earth's dipole
magnet:
- In 1883 Sir Horace Lamb solved the complex electromagnetic
problem of a free current circulating in a conducting sphere.1
- Evaluations have been made on the strength and direction
of this dipole magnet in the core of the earth ever since
the first historic evaluation was made by Gauss in the 1835
epoch. 2,3 The first clue predicted decay, the
second clue confirmed it. Rarely in physics has there been
a better illustration of a mathematical physics theory and
such extensive observational data to confirm it.
The author's articles and book, that developed
and applied this theory of a freely decaying magnet to an earth-age
limitation, were ignored by doctrinaire evolutionists for years.
They apparently felt that the less said the better. In 1981,
however, the American Civil Liberties Union decided to make
an all-out attack upon it. The U.S. Geological Survey research
geologist G. Brent Dalrymple has spearheaded the attack. In
addition to his appearing as their expert witness in the courts,
he has written a book and an article in the Journal of Geophysical
Education4 attacking this author's publications on
the theory of the earth's magnetic age limitation. This Impact
article is a response to his geological education article.
Dalrymple's Dynamo Hypothesis
As is true of most evolutionary geologists, Dalrymple
hypothesizes a dynamo in the molten core of the earth. It is
supposed to be the mechanism for generating the electric current
required to power the dipole magnet for more than three billion
years. Dalrymple states: "Barnes criticizes the dynamo
theory because of the absence of a definitive solution.
" He then goes into a lengthy discourse about dynamos.
One may summarize his ultimate conclusion by his own statement:
"Even though there is near universal agreement that
a dynamo exists in the earth's core, the exact mechanism …is
not known."
Not only are evolutionists in trouble by having
nothing but faith to support their dynamo hypothesis, the same
can be said for their lack of an applicable energy source to
run the dynamo. One has but to review the literature to see
that no one has come up with an acceptable energy source. Dalrymple
uses the "scatter-gun" approach. "At present,
scientists do not know which of the several sources actually
drives the dynamo; in fact, it may be some combination of sources."
Prior to that he stated: "At present it seems that gravitation
may be the most plausible source of energy.... " That
is nonsense and completely unsupported. There is as yet no concept
as to how that type of energy would be able to run the mechanism,
if there were such a thing.
Signal vs. Noise
The basic problem with the evolutionary geologists'
education on the earth's magnetism may be expressed in the language
of an engineer as his failure to distinguish between the signal
and the noise. The two are not functionally related. The earth's
dipole field is the signal. It is known to be due to
electric current in the core of the earth, more than a thousand
miles away from the earth's surface. The noise is the super-position
of all other magnetic fields from whatever magnetic sources
that may exist near enough to make any contribution to the net
magnetic field at any point where the measurements are being
made. There are literally billions of sources of magnetic noise
and ordinarily their location and energy content are not known.
For example, there are times when there are magnetic storms
of such magnitude that transatlantic radio communication is
totally disrupted.
As an illustration of Dalrymple's failure to make
this distinction between signal and noise one should examine
his statement: "Barnes' hypothesis also does not fit
the facts. Freely decaying currents cannot explain the existence,
configuration, movement, or changes of the nondipole field...."
Dalrymple does not seem to understand that the nondipole field
is noise, not the signal. The magnetic age of the earth is related
to the signal, the dipole field, not to the noise. The dipole
field is decaying in accordance with known theoretical physics
equations. That is the signal which Gauss separated from noise
when he made his historic evaluation.
Dalrymple quotes the following statement from
Barnes: "As of now there is no physical evidence, seismic
or otherwise, that there is any motion within the core."
He rejects that and cites a westward motion of the nondipole
field as evidence of motion in the core. His point is to justify
the evolutionary claims of fluid motion in the core as the dynamo
mechanism. That is irrelevant because as previously noted, there
is no known dynamo mechanism. Nevertheless, it shows his failure
to distinguish between signal and noise. The nondipole field
is noise and no one knows the location of its source. Without
knowing the location of the sources of the noise one cannot
compute its total energy.
There has been a measured westward drift of the
earth's magnetic dipole, a precession but not a nutation. Stanley
Stanulonis has derived a theoretical physics explanation of
this westward precession.5 It is due to the solar
wind drag on the magnetic dipole field as the earth rotates
eastward. The net result is a shifting of the electrical
currents in the core of the earth, not a motion of the molten
mass in the core of the earth. Stanulonis' solution contains
both the precession and decaying properties of the earth's magnetic
dipole field. Those are properties of the signal, not the noise.
Dalrymple holds to the evolutionary arguments
that paleomagnetic evidences show that the earth's magnetic
field is more than three billion years old and has gone through
many reversals, changing its polarity from north to south and
back many times, at irregular intervals. Those and the other
arguments of Dalrymple are answered in detail in the new revised
and expanded edition of Barnes' Origin and Destiny of the
Earth's Magnetic Field, Technical Monograph No. 4, published
by the Institute for Creation Research (132 pp.).
One cannot make a credible evaluation of the earth's
magnetic dipole moment from such paleomagnetic data. They are
useful for geophysical exploration, where anomalies indicate
deviations from the dipole field, but not for evaluating the
dipole field. That is illustrated by the graph shown. It compares
the paleomagnetic data with the unquestioned real-time magnetic
dipole moment data. The top curve is from the earth's magnetic
moment data. It shows the known decay. The bottom jagged curve
is derived from a Russian scientist's paper (S.P. Buriatskaya,
1967), which used all of the paleomagnetic data. Note that there
is not the slightest trace of the known decay in the curve of
these paleomagnetic data. One can classify the paleomagnetic
data as noise and the real-time data as the signal.
Conclusion
The Barnes' theory of a young magnetic age for
the earth, only a few thousand years, is the only theory of
the source of the earth's dipole magnet that is supported by
the following important facts:
- A rigorous mathematical physics solution.
- A history of real-time evaluations of the state of the
magnet (its magnetic moment).
- A clearly identified source of energy (its own magnetic
field energy).
- A definitive predictive value.
- A means of computing its source energy and subjecting
that value to an independent check that would have falsified
the theory had there not been a check.
On the other hand, the presumed dynamo theory
has no substantive theoretical basis and no definitive predictive
value. Its presumed reversal mechanism has admittedly remained
inscrutable. The presumed supporting paleomagnetic data contributes
to the noise, not the signal. It does not even check with the
decay of the earth's dipole field during the time in which that
is accurately known, ever since Gauss' evaluations.
The game is up for the evolutionist if he acknowledges
that the earth is only a few thousand years old. To avoid being
completely wiped out he knows that he must fight with all his
might, fair or foul, against this scientific theory and supporting
evidence of a young magnetic earth-age. It is no wonder that
Dalrymple, his ACLU sponsor, and the nine additional noted evolutionists
whom he acknowledges gave him review support on his article,
have made such a desperate effort to conceal this Achilles heel
of evolution, the scientific evidence of a very young earth.
YEAR OF MEASUREMENT
 |
References
1. Sir Horace Lamb, Philosophical Transactions,
(London) 174, pp. 519-549.
2. Sidney Chapman, The Earth's Magnetism. Methuen and
Co., Ltd., London; John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, p.
23.
3. Keith L. McDonald and Robert H. Gunst. "An analysis
of the earth's magnetic field from 1835 to 1965," ESSA
Technical Report. IER 46-IES 1. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., p. 15.
4. Brent G. Dalrymple, "Can the earth be dated from decay
of its magnetic field?", Journal of Geological Education,
Vol. 31, No. 2, March 1983, pp. 124-132.
5. Stanley Stanulonis, "The Mechanism Responsible for
the Precession of the Geomagnetic Dipole with Evaluation of
the Earth's Core's Charge Density and Its Implication,"
Master of Science Thesis, University of Texas at El Paso,
Physics Department, May 1974.
This article was originally published August, 1983. "Earth's Magnetic Age: The Achillies Heal of Evolution", Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/215/ (accessed September 07, 2008).
Want to use this article? View our Ethical Use Policy. To receive more articles from ICR, signup for a free subscription to our online and print publications.