There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
| The divine comedy|
Creation geophysics is the Creationist study of the physics of the earth and its environment. This relies on many claims related to the supposed young age of the earth, such as decay rates, and related fields such as Flood geology. Along with creationism in general, it is discounted as good science due to lack of any supporting empirical evidence..
Earth's magnetic field
A noteworthy claim by some creationists is that the magnetic field surrounding the Earth is decaying, and this therefore indicates a young Earth. The strength of the Earth's magnetic field has decreased by about 7 or 8 percent since the first measurement taken in the 1800s. It is known that the earth's magnetic field varies in strength and intensity, and has reversed in polarity many times before. This presents no problems for the current geophysical models of the Earth. This has been demonstrated in computer simulations of geomagnetic reversal. Evidence gathered from seismic waves has also shown that the Earth's inner core rotates and contributes to a pole shift.. It is estimated that the poles are close to shifting again. Creationists may cite Cowling's Theorem in an attempt to disprove the dynamo theory. This is ruled out simply by knowing that Cowling's Theorem is limited to special cases, such as nonuniform convection.
Some creationist organizations, such as The Institute of Creation Research and the creation science website, discount the theory of plate tectonics entirely, or make absurd assumptions as to how it operates. The theory of plate tectonics was first developed by meteorologist Alfred Wegener in 1912. The theory was shaky and uncertain in those times, but now the evidence is incontrovertible. The actual measure of plate movements, similarity mapping of geological features, fossil distributions, and seismology all point to large scale movements of the lithosphere. It should also be noted that the actual evidence gathered from the ocean floor about pole reversals contributes to this understanding. However, Walter Brown has argued that mid-ocean magnetic anomalies are not indicative of a reversal. The claim is that there is a misinterpretation , and that these anomalies are average. Unfortunately for Mr. Brown, the rocks' magnetic fields themselves also change direction. The important part is that the pattern is same on both sides of the ridge that was measured, which is consistent with the current model.
Geophysics and catastrophism
Some creationists have put a different explanation on the books. Their explanation is that plate tectonics and shifting occurred, but catastrophically. The hypothesis posited is that very severe subduction took place, which lowered the viscosity of the mantle, leading to very fast runaway subduction. This apparently caused the magnetic field to reverse, caused torrential rain to form out of the steam released, erupted flood basalts, and generally flooded the entire earth. Needless to say, the theory is not compatible with empirical evidence. Volcanic island chains indicate slow movement over volcanic hotspots, and the relative erosion on islands such as these and many other geological forms and sites show that they are not the same age, as the creationist theory would require. It is also rather obvious that there is no mechanism under conventional physics that would cause such an event.
- Take note that YEC's argue AGAINST uniformitarianism.
- McDonald, K. L. and R. H. Gunst. "An analysis of the Earth's magnetic field from 1835 to 1965," ESSA Technical Report IER 46-IES 1 (July 1967) U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., Table 3, p. 14.
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJLuDAwSKLo- I guess this is what they think it looked like.