Mercury's Magnetic Field

This is something of a mess.

quote:

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but any magnet that is hit hard enough will lose its magnetic properties, won't it?

---

That applies to permanent magnets. You can make material magnetic by hitting it - if it's in a magnetic field. And the Earth's magnetic field will do.I'm no experton Mercury - and as I udnerstand it the details of how planets generate magnetic fields is not fully understood so I wouldn't rule out some variant of the dynamo theory at this point (which would not be affected by impact).So what's the creationist explanation of Mercury's magnetic field and why do you beleive it ?n

Water isn't known as being useful in permanent magnets. And I very much doubt that 2 Peter 3:5 is intended to suggest that the planet Earth was formed by transmuting water.Quite frankly it looks to me like just another creationist twisting the Bible to try to support their beliefs.

Looking at the comparisonshere Humphreys figures appear to be a bit off.Humphreys gives a figure for the moon that is more than 10,000,000 times less than that for Earth. Yet on the site referenced above t he moon's magnetic field is listed as being only 109 times weaker.
[Added in edit - it MIGHT be a typo for 10^9 - but that would still disagree with Humphreys]The estimates Humphreys gives for Uranus and Neptune are listed as maximum values. Both are larger than the value for Saturn, so it seems that they cannot be "right on" (in fact they are more than 10x the actual figures). It seems likely that his "success" is due solely to making vaguer predictions that were inherently less risky.Worse, Humphreys relies on Barnes discredited claims about the Earth's magnetic field. See here for more informationatThis message has been edited by PaulK, 10-04-2005 03:13 AM