Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mercury's Magnetic Field
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 42 (247076)
09-28-2005 8:06 PM


After studying Mercury in one of my astronomy books, I did some research on it and find the proposal ( that something crashed into it made it the way it is) is sorrowfully lacking in creativity and proof. I make this statement based on the fact that Mercury has a magnetic field. Correct me if I'm wrong, but any magnet that is hit hard enough will lose its magnetic properties, won't it? With the explanations prposed by dynamo theory, I'm more inclined to belive the creationist explanation.
This message has been edited by christ_fanatic, 09-28-2005 08:06 PM
This message has been edited by christ_fanatic, 09-28-2005 08:07 PM
This message has been edited by christ_fanatic, 09-29-2005 07:39 PM
This message has been edited by christ_fanatic, 10-03-2005 04:01 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminAsgara, posted 09-28-2005 8:10 PM christ_fanatic has replied
 Message 11 by AdminNosy, posted 10-03-2005 4:50 PM christ_fanatic has replied
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2005 4:58 PM christ_fanatic has replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 2 of 42 (247078)
09-28-2005 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by christ_fanatic
09-28-2005 8:06 PM


Hi CF,
I don't really know what evolution has to do with Mercury or its magnetic field.
Maybe you could reword this and we can put it in the cosmology section.

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-28-2005 8:06 PM christ_fanatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-29-2005 6:59 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

  
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 42 (247393)
09-29-2005 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminAsgara
09-28-2005 8:10 PM


Mecury and Evolution
Evolution is a framework in which all evidence is interpreted (as is creationism) and if there is evidence that does not fit into the model, then the model must be modified or rejected. In relation to evolution, there has to be an explanation of how the magnetic fields of the planets have lasted for billins of years. This where the dynamo (and Mercury) come in. Mercury is an odd planet, in that it has a magnetic field where the dynamo theory says it shouldn't. What I'am asking is if I've done my homework right, and if not, explain how evolution does account for the magnetic field of Mercury.
This message has been edited by christ_fanatic, 09-29-2005 07:00 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminAsgara, posted 09-28-2005 8:10 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminBen, posted 09-29-2005 7:21 PM christ_fanatic has replied
 Message 5 by AdminNosy, posted 09-29-2005 7:25 PM christ_fanatic has not replied

  
AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 42 (247404)
09-29-2005 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by christ_fanatic
09-29-2005 6:59 PM


Re: Mecury and Evolution
Evolution is a framework in which all evidence is interpreted (as is creationism) and if there is evidence that does not fit into the model, then the model must be modified or rejected.
christ_fanatic,
Where did you get this idea?
Your post has nothing to do with evolution. It's a physics question. Evolution deals with change in biological life over time. Physics and cosmology deal with the physical laws and history of the planets (and larger systems).
I don't know where you're getting this strange idea from. I suggest you take the Queen's advice and reword your post to ask some questions about Mercury's magnetic field only. There's no reason to mention "evolution" there.
You'd also be better off doing some homework yourself about Mercury. Try posting links to support each of your assertions:
- Mercury has a magnetic field
- "Dynamo" theory says it should not.
Nobody can test your assertions, because you've provided no source or online link for them. Here's a link to start: Mercury (planet) - Wikipedia
Thanks.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-29-2005 6:59 PM christ_fanatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-29-2005 7:33 PM AdminBen has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 5 of 42 (247407)
09-29-2005 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by christ_fanatic
09-29-2005 6:59 PM


Re: Mecury and Evolution -- try again
As noted: the magnetic field of Mercury has NOTHING to do with evolution.
What you might be asking about is overall dating of the earth and solar system. This has no direct connection to evolutionary biology.
Instead of proposing a new topic I suggest you go to the Dates and Dating forum and answer the questions in:
Message 1
There is a lot of material there I'm afraid but if you expect anyone to help you with Mercuries magentic field you'll have to show you can handle such material.
In addition, you have not, as I see ABen has told you, supported your post with references to the research you did. Since that is the very first thing you're going to be asked you may as well add it to the opening post to get things started.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-29-2005 6:59 PM christ_fanatic has not replied

  
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 42 (247413)
09-29-2005 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminBen
09-29-2005 7:21 PM


Re: Mecury and Evolution
The way I define evolition is because I see the references to different types of evolution everywhere. Ex, the evolution of the solar system, the universe's evolution, (both in Universe by Design -Danny Faulkner) I've seen evolution used to refer to changes in stellar, geological (my Biology textbook, Ill get the rest of the info tomorrow) and biological changes. Which led me to define evolution as I did. My first ref is at MercuryThe Tiny Planet that Causes Big Problems for Evolution | Answers in Genesis
this is where I started after my eyewitness Universe book (I'll get the copyright and other info tomorrow). I will get the other websites son enough.
This message has been edited by christ_fanatic, 09-29-2005 07:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminBen, posted 09-29-2005 7:21 PM AdminBen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by AdminNosy, posted 09-29-2005 8:40 PM christ_fanatic has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 7 of 42 (247439)
09-29-2005 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by christ_fanatic
09-29-2005 7:33 PM


Re: Mecury and Evolution
The way I define evolition is because I see the references to different types of evolution everywhere. Ex, the evolution of the solar system, the universe's evolution, (both in Universe by Design -Danny Faulkner) I've seen evolution used to refer to changes in stellar, geological (my Biology textbook, Ill get the rest of the info tomorrow) and biological changes.
Ah, one problem explained: since the same word is used here and obviously is NOT refering to the same thing it is necessary to afix some quaifier. By default around here when the word evolution is used we are refering to biological evolution which is a specific process involved with things which imprefectly reproduce under selective pressure. Please be clearer when you are using the terms in the future.
I notice your site is as carefless with terms which they have no excuse for.
You will find yourself in some difficulty if you think that AIG will be adequate support. You can go that way if youw want but they are not intending their material to stand up to considered, knowledgable critism; they are happy if they can sound knowing to those that want to believe what they have to say and at the same time don't know much themselves.
You may continure with that as support of course--- this is just a warning that you are going to find yourself on your own against a number of people here. Some, who drop in now and again, are actual physicists and astrophysicists. It gets a little tricky if you don't know the material you are discussing when that happens and more so if they sites you are using don't know it well either.
I did recommend you search for discussions about Humphrey's here. AIG, I notice, uses him as a reference. He is, I'm pleased to tell you, not going to be able to stand up to actually critisism.
Good luck. I'll promote this when you've cleaned it up so it can go into Dates and Dating since I think it is deep time you are attempting to critisize isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-29-2005 7:33 PM christ_fanatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by christ_fanatic, posted 10-01-2005 9:11 AM AdminNosy has replied

  
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 42 (247895)
10-01-2005 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by AdminNosy
09-29-2005 8:40 PM


Re: Mecury and Evolution
First off, I apologize for not knowing the deault use of evolution. Second, you say AiG is careless in using the term evolution, please document. Third, you act as if creation scientists have no training in their fields, which is obviously not true, as many of them have doctorates in their field(s). I'll ref thiis: Bios | Answers in Genesis If there are actual scientists here, I would be honored to talk with them. Fourth, but most relevant, I was not going to criticize the dating methods, I was merely asking for an explanation of the topic.
This message has been edited by christ_fanatic, 10-01-2005 09:11 AM
This message has been edited by christ_fanatic, 10-01-2005 09:38 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by AdminNosy, posted 09-29-2005 8:40 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by AdminNosy, posted 10-01-2005 10:42 AM christ_fanatic has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 9 of 42 (247907)
10-01-2005 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by christ_fanatic
10-01-2005 9:11 AM


Edit OP for promotion
Now that you have a better understanding of the words you can go back and edit the opening post to clean it up as requested.
When you have done that we can promote it. Should it go in the cosmology section or dates and dating?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by christ_fanatic, posted 10-01-2005 9:11 AM christ_fanatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by christ_fanatic, posted 10-03-2005 4:02 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 42 (248605)
10-03-2005 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by AdminNosy
10-01-2005 10:42 AM


Re: Edit OP for promotion
As it doesn't matter to me, just put it where you think it fits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by AdminNosy, posted 10-01-2005 10:42 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 11 of 42 (248622)
10-03-2005 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by christ_fanatic
09-28-2005 8:06 PM


Creationist Explanation
Normally, I'd ask for you to give the creationist explanation and your evidenced reasoning for why you like it better.
You're new so I'll promote this now. I'm guessing that this has something to do with dating so I'll put it there for now.
You might as well start working on the post which explains the creo explanation and your reasoning. I expect you'll be asked for it several times .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-28-2005 8:06 PM christ_fanatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by christ_fanatic, posted 10-03-2005 4:56 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 12 of 42 (248623)
10-03-2005 4:51 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 42 (248629)
10-03-2005 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by AdminNosy
10-03-2005 4:50 PM


Re: Creationist Explanation
The creat. explanation that I know is reffed here: The Institute for Creation Research
As its been used and tested before and have seen no refutations of it, I support it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by AdminNosy, posted 10-03-2005 4:50 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 14 of 42 (248631)
10-03-2005 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by christ_fanatic
09-28-2005 8:06 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-28-2005 8:06 PM christ_fanatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by christ_fanatic, posted 10-03-2005 5:07 PM PaulK has replied

  
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 42 (248638)
10-03-2005 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by PaulK
10-03-2005 4:58 PM


Okay.
The creat. explanation is based on 2Pet. 3:5 (I think) which basically says God made the earth from water. Humphreys claimed that this applied to the rest of the planets as well. He then calculated the magnetic fields of the planets in the solar system (and the sun) and as this was before we knew the strength of Uranus and Neptune, he used those as predictions of his model. He had set a maximum for the strength of planetary field strength that could falsify his theory if it was exceeded by anything save the sun. When Voyager 2 passed Uranus, Humphreys was vindicated but not the secular scientists, but both sides correctly predicted Neptune's. I havenn't found a refutation of this theory yet, so it holds promise for creat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2005 4:58 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2005 5:37 PM christ_fanatic has not replied
 Message 18 by Matt P, posted 10-03-2005 5:53 PM christ_fanatic has not replied
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2005 6:21 PM christ_fanatic has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024