VENUS: Lack of Magnetic Field

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,..Hebrews 11:3

"Earth has a magnetic field sufficient to support life. 

Venus does not. 

Q: Why does “Earth’s twin” lack this protective shield?

According to secular geophysicists, a magnetic field is generated by a dynamo in a planet’s interior. The dynamo is generated by convection of molten material in the planet’s mantle.

Granting, for the sake of argument, that the theory is adequate to explain Earth’s magnetic field, a problem arises: as a planet cools, its innards should become stratified. A layered structure, however, is not conducive to convection. Without convection, no magnetic field. Without a magnetic field, no life. At Universe Today, Matt Williams explains the conundrum:

"Recent studies on high-pressure mineral physics and on orbital dynamics have also indicated that planetary cores develop a stratified structure as they accrete. The reason for this has to do with how a higher abundance of light elements are incorporated in with liquid metal during the process, which would then sink to form the core of the planet as temperatures and pressure increased.

Such a stratified core would be incapable of convection, which is believed to be what allows for Earth’s magnetic field. To get convection started on the Earth, they surmise, the alleged Moon-forming impact stirred the mantle and core sufficiently to instigate convection."

"The significance of this study, in terms of how it relates to the evolution of Earth and the emergence of life, cannot be understated. -If Earth’s magnetosphere is the result of a late energetic impact, then such impacts could very well be the difference between our planet being habitable or being either too cold and arid (like Mars) or too hot and hellish (like Venus)."

It also means that exoplanets around other stars will be unlikely to have habitable planets:

"Looking beyond our Solar System, this paper also has implications in the study of extra-solar planets. Here too, the difference between a planet being habitable or not may come down to high-energy impacts being a part of the system’s early history. In the future, when studying extra-solar planets and looking for signs of habitability, scientists may very well be forced to ask one simple question: “Was it hit hard enough?”

Not just any impact will do. Jacobson’s open-access paper at Earth and Planetary Science Letters says, “Late, giant impacts may mechanically mix the core, removing the stratigraphy.” 

Many planets show scars of numerous impacts, but according to current secular thinking, the Earth took a wallop huge enough to send enough debris out to form the Moon. 

Q: How often does that happen? 

Q: And how long can the stirring last while life is trying to get a foothold? (in evolutionary thinking, that is).

Fans of Spike Psarris’s DVD on the solar system will recognize the materialists’ all-purpose explanatory tool at work here. Even secular critics may see the impact requirement as a new epicycle to maintain a consensus theory that already suffered defects, such as maintaining the field for millions of years. Measurements show Earth’s field has decayed at 5% since Carl Friedrich Gauss measured it in 1835. Dr Richter explains the significance of this decline:

"Let me tell you, a decrease of 5% in the earth’s magnetic field strength represents a huge energy change. The earth’s magnetic field stores an immense amount of energy. To have this amount decrease

by 5% in a little over 100 years represents an enormous loss of energy in a relatively short period of time. Calculations on this rate show that the field’s half-life is 1400 years; in other words, in 1400 years the field strength will be half what it was. Some day in the future—should the earth remain and the decay continue—the magnetic field will effectively vanish. The dynamo theory, Richter explains in chapter 7 of Spacecraft Earth, fails to account for this empirically observed decline, and argues against millions of years (note that the decay concerns the strength of the field, not its polarity). If Richter is correct, the Earth would have been uninhabitable a few thousand years ago (because the field would be too strong), and will become uninhabitable within a few more thousand years. If this is true of exoplanets, they would also have a brief window of habitability that would far too short for Darwinian evolution."

Imagining Utopias.
Such problems are rarely considered in the confident-sounding news articles like this -- “‘Super Earth’ is discovered and it has perfect conditions for aliens.” There’s no mention of a magnetic field at all. Also ignored is that this ‘super Earth’ orbits a red dwarf, which makes it a poor candidate for habitability.

Red dwarfs are the most common type of star, reports Phys.org. But they are also the most deadly. In the article, John Greenwald says, “Blowing in the stellar wind: Scientists reduce the chances of life on exoplanets in so-called habitable zones.” Strong stellar winds tend to sweep away the atmospheres of planets orbiting red dwarfs. They are also subject to emit deadly flares that would quickly sterilize a planetary surface." 

CEH

MERCURY: Evidence fits a Recent Creation

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God.... Hebrews 11:3

"In fact, it is because of this presumed rapid heat loss that
mainstream scientists were surprised when data from the Mariner 10 spacecraft revealed that Mercury still has a magnetic field.
This is because ‘planetary dynamo’ theories attempting to explain how a planet can maintain a magnetic field over eons of time require a molten liquid core within the planet.
But because of Mercury’s small size, Mercury’s core should have cooled off long ago, making it impossible for such dynamo behavior to continue.

*The survival of Mercury’s magnetic field and ongoing contraction are much easier to explain if Mercury was created recently.
Indeed, indications of relative youth are abundant throughout our solar system."

ICR

SATURN: Saturn's Magnetic Field undermines Evolutionary Cosmology

"As Cassini scientists admitted (NASA and JPL), Saturn’s magnetic field
contradicts theory. 

There is almost zero difference between the spin access and its magnetic field axis. Theory requires some degree of difference to drive the dynamo assumed to create magnetic fields. This “surprising” fact remains unexplained after Cassini’s 13-year mission.

Based on data collected by Cassini’s magnetometer instrument, Saturn’s magnetic field appears to be surprisingly well-aligned with the planet’s rotation axis. The tilt is much smaller than 0.06 degrees — which is the lower limit the spacecraft’s magnetometer data placed on the value prior to the start of the Grand Finale.

--This observation is at odds with scientists’ theoretical understanding of how magnetic fields are generated. 

--Planetary magnetic fields are understood to require some degree of tilt to sustain currents flowing through the liquid metal deep inside the planets (in Saturn’s case, thought to be liquid metallic hydrogen). 

--With no tilt, the currents would eventually subside and the field would disappear.

Saturn is not the only planet with a magnetic problem." 

CEH
Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; Thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host,... Nehemiah 9:6

Pangaea Research

....the same day were all the fountains 

of the great deep broken up,

Genesis 7:11

"The theory of plate tectonics explains many earth features, like ocean floor trenches and sediment-free mid-ocean ridges made of hardened magma. 

The popular theory holds that continents drift slowly across earth's surface atop deeply buried molten rock, and that plate movements creep along at leisurely paces. But new research by Yale University geologists calls that into question.
Yale graduate student Ross Mitchell and his team traced the orientations of tiny magnetic minerals in Cambrian rocks from Australia. 

--In research published in the journal Geology, they applied evolution's timeline to the deposits that were studied and concluded that instead of crawling at today's slow rate, ancient continents must have moved over three times faster.

Reconstructions of the ancient earth are constantly being amended because they are based on vague clues. However, the current consensus is that a giant, single supercontinent called Pangaea was once centered on the South Pole. Its southern portion, Gondwana, contained what would eventually break off to become Australia. For an unknown reason, Pangaea split up and scientists are interested in modeling where the resulting land masses used to be and how fast they moved to their current positions.

If the Cambrian rocks travelled across the globe as far as the various clues indicate they did, then they had to have moved at quite a clip, even within the standard evolutionary timeframe.
The study's authors provided the explanations that "either nonuniformitarian plate tectonics or an episode of rapid true polar wander" could have moved these massive plates so quickly.
"Nonuniformitarian plate tectonics" refers to continental plate movements that occurred faster than the currently observed rate of 4 to 5 centimeters per year. "True polar wander" refers to the possibility that the mantle, and the plates that ride atop it, shifted so that the North Pole was relocated.

But there is a third option that these researchers failed to consider.

Creation geophysicist John Baumgardner, who is recognized throughout the world as the leader in computational modeling of the earth's mantle dynamics, recently researched this very question.

He realized that neither nonuniformitarian plate tectonics nor true polar wander could possibly explain the rapidity with which continents moved…during only weeks of the Genesis Flood year.

In other words, for these Cambrian rocks--which mark the start of the Flood--to have travelled that far across the globe so fast, they had to have moved faster than the physics of true polar wander or the most rapid possible rates of plate motion would allow.

Therefore, Baumgardner, who developed the important TERRA software for modeling earth dynamics while at Los Alamos National Laboratories, began work on a unique alternative: Perhaps the whole earth experienced rotational instability that dramatically rearranged the continents on its surface. He wrote in a recent email, "When I programmed and solved the equations describing the rotational behavior of a solid body and applied them to this scenario for the earth, indeed I found spectacular unstable rotational motions of the earth were possible."

Baumgardner said, "During this unstable rotational motion, I found

that the North and South Poles themselves rotate about an axis through the plane of the equator and do so quickly enough to be able to cause several complete flips of the earth relative to the spin axis during the few months of the Flood." This rotational instability also accounts for magnetic field reversal data like those which Mitchell studied.

Although this is a valid model, rapid rotational dynamics of the earth is not on the radar of geologists who reject the possibility of a recent, global flood. But it shows that the Biblical record can inspire high quality reconstructions of earth's past that accord with geological observations. 

*According to both Genesis and Mitchell's study, earth experienced a catastrophic, violent past. 

*And Baumgardner's creation-based research gives a logical mechanism for it." 

ICR