Evolution? How?

I'll utterly destroy you in a knowledge bowl of anything pertaining to Star Wars, football,

What about the "Decay of the earths magnetic field" are you willing to concede that, because we know so much about polar wandering, pole reversals, and the existence of multipolar planetary magnetism,, that the dipole moment and the field intensity and magnetic declination arent indicating a decline in magnitude but are merely involved in epochal fluctuations? or are you going to obstinately keep up with Dr Barnes (who, as Ive found out today, has been pretty much disowned by the Creationists themselves.) Since the total field has remained constant for over seventy plus years, the conecept of Barnes "exponential decay" based on 100 years of data is kind of been dumped as a myth.

The strength of the magnetic field has been decreasing lately, does this mean that we are about to have a reversal?

Almost certainly not. Direct historical measurements of the intensity of the geomagnetic field have been possible ever since Gauss invented the magnetometer in the 1830's. Since then the average intensity of the field at the Earth's surface has decreased by about ten percent. And we know, from paleomagnetic records, that the intensity of the field does indeed decrease, by as much as ninety percent, at the Earth's surface during a reversal. But those same paleomagnetic records also show that the field intensity has often exhibited significant variation, with both decreases and increases in intensity, without there always being a coincident reversal. So, an intensity low does not necessarily mean that a reversal is about to occur. Moreover, the recent decrease in intensity is not really that dramatic of a departure from normality, and for all we know the field may actually get stronger at some point in the not-so-distant future. It's worth remarking that predicting the occurrence of a reversal based upon a knowledge of the current state of the magnetic field is about as easy as predicting the next bull market on Wall Street; you don't know it's happening until it's half over!

Using ambiguous 1967 data, ..... energy gains in minor ("non-dipole") parts (seemed to) compensate for the energy loss from the main ("dipole") part. Using data from the International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF)... from 1970 to 2000, the dipole part of the field steadily lost 235 ± 5 billion megajoules of energy, while the non-dipole part gained only 129 ± 8 billion megajoules. Over that 30-year period, the net loss of energy from all observable parts of the field was 1.41 ± 0.16 %. At that rate, the field would lose half its energy every 1465 ± 166 years.

don't exactly sound adamant that a continual decrease is not still taking place. It simply offers speculation that it may (or may not) reverse.

Some bighead up among that mish-mash wrote-

Quote:

I'll utterly destroy you in a knowledge bowl of anything pertaining to Star Wars, football,

You can have it on the Star Wars mate but on football forget it.You couldn't live with me on football.

Feelin' a little scrappy today, Boss?

Define football.

This is the omnibus thread, right?

The sooner an American team gets into a World Cup semi-final the better.Once that happens American football will be toast.

Cricket is something else though.It defies human understanding.

Which has what to do with circumstantial evidence for a creation?

Youre initial post was that a "continuous" field intensity decrease was consistant with a "young earth"

So if data from the magnetic field indicates that the Earth's age is more likely measured in millions or even 1-3 billion, that would spell serious trouble for the evolutionary hypothesis, I think most would agree.