Real Science Radio: Earth & Mercury's Decaying Magnetic Fields

[Jukia]

I don't believe evolutionists are involved in astrophysics, Stripe.

As far as the Striped Man is concerned any facts or evidence which suggests his particular Holy Book is wrong is evolution. His brain has difficulty understanding too many concepts at once.

 

[gcthomas]

What were the predictions made by the evolutionists planetary scientists again?

(fixed it! :up

From my copy of Neptune: The planet, rings and satellites (Springer-Praxis), the historical predictions included one based on the Magnetic Bode's Law which turned out to be surprisingly close to the measured values. Other predictions were that if there was "a conducting convection layer around the central core ... Neptune might be the first known planet with an internal magnetic field that was not generated from the core, but from a layer surrounding it."

The claim that scientists were convinced that Neptune/Uranus must have no magnetic field is a fabrication.

 

[GuySmiley]

(fixed it! :up

From my copy of Neptune: The planet, rings and satellites (Springer-Praxis), the historical predictions included one based on the Magnetic Bode's Law which turned out to be surprisingly close to the measured values. Other predictions were that if there was "a conducting convection layer around the central core ... Neptune might be the first known planet with an internal magnetic field that was not generated from the core, but from a layer surrounding it."

The claim that scientists were convinced that Neptune/Uranus must have no magnetic field is a fabrication.

Yes, its a fabrication by you.

From here: http://www.icr.org/article/329/

"On August 25, 1989, Voyager II passed by Neptune and found that it has a magnetic moment of 1.5 x 1024 A m2, again about in the middle of my prediction. Neptune has a significant heat outflow, so dynamo theorists expected it to have a field as strong as the one I predicted. Thus for Neptune, the creationist and evolutionist theories did equally well, as far as predicting the strength of the field is concerned. However, in other aspects of the magnetic field, Neptune gave the dynamo theorists a rude surprise."

 

[Stripe]

:chuckle:

 

[Jukia]

Hi Jukia! Those who've listened to the show heard a physicist discuss the issues you raised above -- and not just any physicist but -- the very scientist who is an expert in magnetic fields who, apparently alone in the history of the world, had successfully published predictions, later confirmed by NASA, of the strength of the fields of Uranus and Neptune, and of the wildly rapid decline of Mercury's field strength. (Similar to a thousand other atheist claims, materialists say that Mercury's rapid decline is not evidence for its youth but is instead merely an amazing coincidence -- that just when we happened to measure it, we caught it in a wild decline, just like the Earth! Wow, double coincidence.)

Also Jukia, I don't recall if you've ever commented on our question at rsr.org/jukia:

Do Atheists Even Have a Hypothesis on Origins? Because atheists don't have a workable hypothesis to account for human consciousness, therefore they don't even have a theory to explain where we've come from, let alone a robust theory. The following pattern shows that atheists do not have even a hypothesis on origins, as demonstrated by these six irrefutable observations:
- the origin of species for Darwin begins with species already in existence
- the origin of stars begins with the explosion of existing stars and with protostars
- the origin of genes that code for new proteins begins with modifying existing genes
- the origin of species by neo-Darwinism begins with existing complex reproducing life
- the origin of life on earth is increasingly seen as seeded from already existing alien life
- the origin of the universe is increasingly explained by appeals to the pre-existing multiverse.

This pattern demonstrates that many in the public, following a gullible media, have undue confidence in the claims about origins from materialists. Consider also the origin of something as relatively simple as the eye's trochlea (click or just Google: PZ trochlea), for which famed evolutionist PZ Myers admits that a lifetime of studying Darwinism gives him no insight into how such utter simplicity could have evolved. Then how about something complex? In very general terms, how might a material process originate to encode a protein sequence onto a DNA molecule? Atheists have nothing. And they will forever have nothing, because a high-level understanding of physics and information affirmatively demonstrates that the laws of physics do not include symbolic logic functions. Information is not physical, and hence, strictly material systems cannot give rise to information systems.

Jukia, I know that years of annoyances between you and others here at TOL build up to anger and resentment. If you go to your grave never having asked the Lord to forgive you of your sins, then for eternity you will miss out on enjoying the Lord and enjoying the fellowship of any of your friends or loved ones who love Him. Also of course, then there would never then be reconciliation between you and me and the many others here who have also prayed for you over the years.

Sincerely,

- Bob Enyart
http://realscienceradio.com

Ah Pastor Bob, well I did listen up to the part where Dr. H said that the magnetic reversals happened hundreds of times during the Flood year, then I got a beer and watched the Rangers blow a lead. Sorry, your scientific hero is just another misrepresenter for Jesus.

Your comment about we should not expect to see such transient changes if the earth is billions of years old is interesting. Following your logic, the first time someone is at the ocean they should expect the tide to keep going out.

I love your list of unanswered questions. Yep, I suspect we don't know all the answers.

I have followed your challenge to PZ and his response. He did not know. I think that is a bit more honest than therefore "goddidit" but that is just a rational way of thinking, not one governed by fear of your particular god's hell fire.

And save your prayers. If your god appreciates the fact that you are a consistent prevaricator on his behalf then you are welcome to him. Your idea of Christianity is soooo far from what I was taught and originally believed it is not reconcilable.

 

[gcthomas]

Yes, its a fabrication by you.

From here: http://www.icr.org/article/329/

"On August 25, 1989, Voyager II passed by Neptune and found that it has a magnetic moment of 1.5 x 1024 A m2, again about in the middle of my prediction. Neptune has a significant heat outflow, so dynamo theorists expected it to have a field as strong as the one I predicted. Thus for Neptune, the creationist and evolutionist theories did equally well, as far as predicting the strength of the field is concerned. However, in other aspects of the magnetic field, Neptune gave the dynamo theorists a rude surprise."

OK, Uranus then. Here is piece from Nature a few days before Voyager reached the planet:

I just a matter of days, Voyager 2, now nearly 8.4 years into its grand tour of the Solar System, will sweep past Uranus. The Prospect has inspired discussion of the planet's magnetic field, published estimates of which at cloudtop level range from tens of gauss down to zero. ...

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/319174a0

There were NO firm predictions of Uranus's magnetic field. That is a fabrication of the ICR.

 

[Bob Enyart]

I don't believe evolutionists are involved in astrophysics, Stripe.

gc, that bad astronomer Phil Plait criticized our friend Spike Psarris and took a swipe at Real Science Radio also regarding that word...

http://kgov.com/spike-psarris-and-phil-plait



- Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio

 

[gcthomas]

gc, that bad astronomer Phil Plait criticized our friend Spike Psarris and took a swipe at Real Science Radio also regarding that word...

http://kgov.com/spike-psarris-and-phil-plait



- Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio

Bob,

Are you suggesting that the word evolution here means the same sort of evolution as when you mention evolutionism?

If not, then it is a silly comment. If yes, then you are mistaken.

(Or is this meant to be a joke? Ha ha?)

 

[GuySmiley]

OK, Uranus then. Here is piece from Nature a few days before Voyager reached the planet:

I just a matter of days, Voyager 2, now nearly 8.4 years into its grand tour of the Solar System, will sweep past Uranus. The Prospect has inspired discussion of the planet's magnetic field, published estimates of which at cloudtop level range from tens of gauss down to zero. ...

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/319174a0

There were NO firm predictions of Uranus's magnetic field. That is a fabrication of the ICR.

A variety of predictions doesn't mean there were no firm predictions.

Regardless, Humphreys said "In contrast, many evolutionists* had predicted that Uranus would have a much smaller field, or none at all." Which is true. No fabrication, other than the fabrication you are trying to fabricate.

*see post 27

 

[Jukia]

Bob,

Are you suggesting that the word evolution here means the same sort of evolution as when you mention evolutionism?

If not, then it is a silly comment. If yes, then you are mistaken.

(Or is this meant to be a joke? Ha ha?)

Pastor Bob knows well what the difference is, and I suspect he cares, which is why he posts what he does to make the true believers think him very bright and honest.

 

[Stripe]

There were NO firm predictions of Uranus's magnetic field.

By evolutionists, right?

Are you suggesting that the word evolution here means the same sort of evolution as when you mention evolutionism?

Evolutionists believe everything is evolution. :idunno:

 

[Bob Enyart]

Evolutionists believe everything is evolution. :idunno:

Hi Stripe! Yeah, chemical evolution, cosmic evolution, biological evolution. I quoted Dobzhansky in my paper, at rsr.org/dobz, who was quoting one of their own luminaries, de Chardin, who wrote, "Is evolution a theory...? It is much more -- it is a general postulate to which all theories... must henceforward bow. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts."

Stripe, you might recall that our friend Spike Psarris (I enjoyed a few meals with Spike at a Pittsburgh conference last summer), wrote about Discover magazine's astronomer Phil Plait (see rsr.org/spike):

Phil is calling me a false witness — a liar — for applying the word “evolution” to astronomy.

But as an astronomer, surely Phil knows that the word “evolution” is used constantly in astronomy...

As I write this (June 2009), the current issue of the Astronomical Journal alone has 3 papers using “evolution” or “evolved” in their titles.

In the astronomical literature, the word “evolution” is everywhere.

Surely Phil knows that [the titles of] countless astrophysics books present models for the “evolution”:

Of stars:

Evolution of Stars and Stellar Populations (by Salaris and Cassisi)

Physics, Formation and Evolution of Rotating Stars (by Maeder)

Stellar Structure and Evolution (by Kippenhahn and Weigert)

And galaxies:

The Structure and Evolution of Galaxies (by Phillipps)

The Chemical Evolution of the Galaxy (by Matteucci)

Nucleosynthesis and Chemical Evolution of Galaxies (by Pagel)

And planets:

Planets and Their Atmospheres, Volume 33: Origins and Evolution (by Lewis and Prinn)

A Comparison of the Dynamical Evolution of Planetary Systems (editors Dvorak and Ferraz-Mello)

Solar System Evolution: A New Perspective (by Taylor)

So, why does Phil [and those who oppose the Lord on TOL] say “evolution has nothing to do with astronomy”?​

Why do you think Stripe? Spike gives his own guess; and I guess that it's just to obfuscate and to mock.

- Bob Enyart
rsr.org

 

[Stripe]

I think evolution is the theory that all life is descended by means of random mutation and natural selection from a universal common ancestor. I wish evolutionists thought that way too.

 

[DavisBJ]

Hi Stripe! Yeah, chemical evolution, cosmic evolution, biological evolution. I quoted Dobzhansky in my paper, at rsr.org/dobz, who was quoting one of their own luminaries, de Chardin, who wrote, "Is evolution a theory...? It is much more -- it is a general postulate to which all theories... must henceforward bow. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts."

Stripe, you might recall that our friend Spike Psarris (I enjoyed a few meals with Spike at a Pittsburgh conference last summer), wrote about Discover magazine's astronomer Phil Plait (see rsr.org/spike):

Phil is calling me a false witness — a liar — for applying the word “evolution” to astronomy.
…
So, why does Phil [and those who oppose the Lord on TOL] say “evolution has nothing to do with astronomy”?​

Why do you think Stripe? Spike gives his own guess; and I guess that it's just to obfuscate and to mock.

- Bob Enyart
rsr.org

In my conversations with hundreds of scientists, I have always found that the use of the word “evolution” in “The Theory of Evolution” was automatically understood to be referring to changes in biological species. I see that Kent Hovind (and apparently Spike Psarris and Bob Enyart) find they can use the word in almost any correct grammatical context, and that broad use of the word “evolution” is what they seem to want “Theory of Evolution” to be referring to.

It is unfortunate when ministers feel it necessary to resort to ridiculing a scientific theory by using word games in place of scientific evidence supporting or challenging the scientific theory.

 

[Stripe]

In my conversations with hundreds of scientists, I have always found that the use of the word “evolution” in “The Theory of Evolution” was automatically understood to be referring to changes in biological species.

Your anecdotes do not change the evidence that has been posted.

However, evolutionists love this sort of argument -- when they debate definitions, they do not have to look at evidence.

:think:

Unless there is clear evidence provided that evolutionists talk about evolution in many areas outside of biology. :chuckle:

 

[Tyrathca]

Your anecdotes do not change the evidence that has been posted.

However, evolutionists love this sort of argument -- when they debate definitions, they do not have to look at evidence.

:think:

Unless there is clear evidence provided that evolutionists talk about evolution in many areas outside of biology. :chuckle:

Stripe thinks he understands the discussion, how cute! :mock: Stripe

 

[Bob Enyart]

Hello DBJ,

You wrote, regarding:

... “The Theory of Evolution” ... I see that Kent Hovind (and apparently Spike Psarris and Bob Enyart) find they can use the word in almost any correct grammatical context, and that broad use of the word “evolution” is what they seem to want “Theory of Evolution” to be referring to.

I'm familiar with Spike's work, and I don't recall him using "Theory of Evolution" to refer to astrophysics, and I'm sure that I never have. So being 0-for-2 there, you'd have to show me where Hovind used it that way before I'd credit you for being correct regarding him.

I use theory of chemical evolution for that, and theory of solar system evolution for that, or for short, chemical evolution, planetary evolution, stellar evolution, etc. Why are you guys so touchy when it comes to the evolution label? You remind me of abortionists who don't want to be called abortionists, and liberals who get upset when we call them liberals.




Posted from the TOL App!

 

[DavisBJ]

Your anecdotes do not change the evidence that has been posted.

Not an anecdote, but a simple truthful statement based on decades of interaction with scientists. As to evidence that has been posted, I fail to see where the term “evolution” that is used in the “The Theory of Evolution”, is understood by the scientific community to include a whole bevy of non-biological things. Since I missed it, I would appreciate you providing some specific links showing scientists using the term in the broad sense that you and Enyart snicker about.

However, evolutionists love this sort of argument -- when they debate definitions, they do not have to look at evidence.

I realize what I posted before may have used too many big words for you, so let me say it again and see if you understand this time. When scientists are discussing the theory of Evolution, “evolution” means in that context is not a matter of debate. It is religious nut-cases that pretend that any use of the word must be the same as in Darwin’s theory.

Case in point, I have many hundreds of issues of “Science” in my library, most containing multiple peer-reviewed articles, including the specific measurements, discussing evolution. You can find the same at many libraries. How many of those articles can you point to where the definition of “evolution” is the focus?

Unless there is clear evidence provided that evolutionists talk about evolution in many areas outside of biology. :chuckle:

There is nothing wrong with anyone talking about evolution in many areas outside of biology, as long as it is understood what the meaning is in the contest under discussion. According to Enyart, Spike Psarris has real issues with the definitions of evolution. You recently posted:

I think evolution is the theory that all life is descended by means of random mutation and natural selection from a universal common ancestor.

I think that is a pretty fair concise statement. If you are sincere and believe evolution (the theory) is as you say, you are the one that should be opposing the Psarris/Enyart verbal silliness.

 

[Stripe]

Not an anecdote, but a simple truthful statement based on decades of interaction with scientists. As to evidence that has been posted, I fail to see where the term “evolution” that is used in the “The Theory of Evolution”, is understood by the scientific community to include a whole bevy of non-biological things. Since I missed it, I would appreciate you providing some specific links showing scientists using the term in the broad sense that you and Enyart snicker about.

I realize what I posted before may have used too many big words for you, so let me say it again and see if you understand this time. When scientists are discussing the theory of Evolution, debate over what “evolution” means in that context is not a matter of debate. It is religious nut-cases that pretend that any use of the word must be the same as in Darwin’s theory.

Case in point, I have many hundreds of issues of “Science” in my library, most containing multiple peer-reviewed articles, including the specific measurements, discussing evolution. You can find the same at many libraries. How many of those articles can you point to where the definition of “evolution” is the focus?

There is nothing wrong with anyone talking about evolution in many areas outside of biology, as long as it is understood what the meaning is in the contest under discussion. According to Enyart, Spike Psarris has real issues with the definitions of evolution. You recently posted:

I think that is a pretty fair concise statement. If you are sincere and believe evolution (the theory) is as you say, you are the one that should be opposing the Psarris/Enyart verbal silliness.

Evolutionists love arguing about nonsense. Especially when they have evidence they need to hide from.

From Google Nexus and the TOL app!

 

[DavisBJ]

Evolutionists love arguing about nonsense. Especially when they have evidence they need to hide from.

From Google Nexus and the TOL app!

Thank you. I tell you the scientific journals I have that have the data (the “evidence”), and your response is to say we are the ones hiding from the evidence. Sometimes you post ideas that are worth thinking about, but too often you resort to this infantile level of interaction. I am not particularly interested in participating in your pre-school games.