What do you think?
Rate this book
Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field
Book by Barnes, T.
- GenresScience
132 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1973
6 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
November 1, 2014
I struggled to decide between one star and two. The book is important because it inspired antievolutionist Russ Humphrey's current "work" on geomagnetism. Furthermore, it shows that antievolutionists should not be dismissed as delusional or irrational. On the contrary, their hypotheses are typically well thought out and many times internally coherent. On the other hand, despite the brevity of this book, it spends at least as much time attacking the theories current at the time as defending the hypothesis of the book. This is done primarily through the time honored antievolutionist technique of quote mining: pulling out bits of nonsectarian scientific work to leave the impression that mainstream science is on much shakier ground than it actually is. In retrospect most of the attacks in this book are absurd, since much of what is attacked (magnetic dipole reversals, past fluctuations in a smooth decay curve) are now accepted by Barnes' disciple, Russ Humphreys.
While there are too many inaccuracies in the book to address each oneI feel compelled to say something about the continued misrepresentation of the supposed assumption that C14 production in the upper atmosphere has always been constant. I really don't know if Barnes is simply lying on the point, or whether he was simply unaware of how C14 dating is done. While it is true that in the early years this assumption was made out of necessity it was recognized from the very beginning that it was an assumption that could be tested against organic material of known date; for example- tree rings. Very early on a calibrated curve was developed to account for the varying C14 production over time and the curve has been refined over time so that at present we can have very high confidence in C14 dates for at least the past 10,000 years and reasonable confidence for thousands of years before that.
While there are too many inaccuracies in the book to address each oneI feel compelled to say something about the continued misrepresentation of the supposed assumption that C14 production in the upper atmosphere has always been constant. I really don't know if Barnes is simply lying on the point, or whether he was simply unaware of how C14 dating is done. While it is true that in the early years this assumption was made out of necessity it was recognized from the very beginning that it was an assumption that could be tested against organic material of known date; for example- tree rings. Very early on a calibrated curve was developed to account for the varying C14 production over time and the curve has been refined over time so that at present we can have very high confidence in C14 dates for at least the past 10,000 years and reasonable confidence for thousands of years before that.
February 14, 2025
ICR TECHNICAL MONOGRAPH NO. 4
[NOTE: this review pertains to the original 1973 version.]
Thomas G. Barnes (1911-2001) was a creationist physicist mostly associated with the Creation Research Society. (His Ph.D. was an ‘honorary’ one, from the Hardin Simmons University---a Baptist college.]
He wrote in the Preface to this 1973 book, “The most remarkable worldwide geophysical property discovered in the last century is the rapid decay of the earth’s magnet field. As a consequence of this decay the earth is losing the magnetic field that has provided protection from harmful radiation. The author supplies an answer to the question: When will the magnetic field vanish?... The most profound consequence of this theory of the source of the earth’s magnetic field and the observed data is that it demands a recent origin. There is no uniformitarian means by which the phenomenally large current required to produce the earth’s magnetic field could have been started in recent geologic time. The conclusion is reached that the earth’s magnetic field is the result of the Biblical creation.” (Pg. iv)
He states, “There is… a very good scientific explanation of the present source of the earth’s magnetic field. The famous scientist, Sir Horace Lamb, provided the scientific basis for this explanation in 1883. The explanation is that there are free currents, a relic of an origin in the past, circulating inside the earth which produce the magnetic field… They are freely decaying currents, and consequently the magnetic field is also freely decaying.” (Pg. 9) He adds, “The confirmation of Lamb’s theory rests upon observed decay of the earth’s magnetic field. Proponents of the dynamo theory are not willing to concede that the magnetic field is decaying, whereas Lamb’s theory requires this decay and relates the decay rate to the conductivity and the size of the earth’s core.” (Pg. 11)
He explains, “It can be shown that the earth’s core has a self-inductance… and that the resistance of the core is fantastically small… As one would expect then, the decay time for the earth’s magnetic field is quite long. The time constant has been computed from the observational data … and was found… to have a value of 1,970 years. This is an interesting time constant. It means that the value of the earth’s magnetic field in the decade of 1970 A.D. is only about 37% of what it was at the time of the birth of Christ.” (Pg. 17)
Later, he adds, “Some … anomalies may alter the earth’s field over large regions of the earth. Sometimes the anomaly may cause a magnetic field that is larger than the dipole field in that region. However, when averaged over the whole earth, these anomalies are much smaller than the dipole field, otherwise the compass would not be described as having ‘north-seeking’ and ‘south-seeking’ poles… It is the magnetic field of the earth, the dipole field, that shields the earth from much of the solar wind. It also ‘guides’ much of the radiation in toward the magnetic polar regions. It is this magnetic polar effect that locates the auroral zones.” (Pg. 39)
He includes a chart on page 26 with his calculations for the magnetic field from 1 million years B.C., up to 1970 A.D. Interestingly, he asserts that at 50,000 years B.C., the Earth's magnetic field would be the same as that of a Pulsar; and at 30,000 years B.C., it would be same as a White Dwarf star; and at 8,000 B.C. [10,000 years before the present being the 'outside limit' age for the Earth, to some 'young earth' creationists] it would equal that of a Magnetic Star. (Methinks, something is wrong with Barnes' extrapolation...)
He acknowledges, “[Some] believe that the present decay rate is temporary and not indicative of its long-time behavior. They contend that the earth’s magnetic field has reversed itself at irregular intervals and only temporarily loses its magnetic field, somehow maintaining the same average value of the earth’s magnetic field throughout ‘geologic time.’ The reversed direction of magnetization which has been observed in some rocks is interpreted as evidence of reversals of the earth’s magnetic field.” (Pg. 43)
He continues, “Because of their need to justify an age of billions of years for the earth’s magnetic field, evolutionists suppose that some type of dynamo has kept the current running for billions of years. They have hypothesized ‘dynamos’ of various kinds, but none of these dynamo theories is without its difficulties.” (Pg. 44)
He concludes, “It is clear that paleomagnetic arguments for reversal of the earth’s magnetic field are not conclusive and depend in the main on arbitrary interpretations of selectively chosen samples… No acceptable dynamo theory to sustain or oscillate the earth’s magnetic field has ever been conceived nor is one very likely.”
Critics of creationism most often cite magnetic field reversals as the refutation of Barnes’ argument; at any rate, more than 50 years after this book was published, the magnetic field should by now have gone down to almost nothing---which is obviously not the case. (Barnes, like many evangelicals, probably expected the Second Coming no later than 1988.)
[NOTE: this review pertains to the original 1973 version.]
Thomas G. Barnes (1911-2001) was a creationist physicist mostly associated with the Creation Research Society. (His Ph.D. was an ‘honorary’ one, from the Hardin Simmons University---a Baptist college.]
He wrote in the Preface to this 1973 book, “The most remarkable worldwide geophysical property discovered in the last century is the rapid decay of the earth’s magnet field. As a consequence of this decay the earth is losing the magnetic field that has provided protection from harmful radiation. The author supplies an answer to the question: When will the magnetic field vanish?... The most profound consequence of this theory of the source of the earth’s magnetic field and the observed data is that it demands a recent origin. There is no uniformitarian means by which the phenomenally large current required to produce the earth’s magnetic field could have been started in recent geologic time. The conclusion is reached that the earth’s magnetic field is the result of the Biblical creation.” (Pg. iv)
He states, “There is… a very good scientific explanation of the present source of the earth’s magnetic field. The famous scientist, Sir Horace Lamb, provided the scientific basis for this explanation in 1883. The explanation is that there are free currents, a relic of an origin in the past, circulating inside the earth which produce the magnetic field… They are freely decaying currents, and consequently the magnetic field is also freely decaying.” (Pg. 9) He adds, “The confirmation of Lamb’s theory rests upon observed decay of the earth’s magnetic field. Proponents of the dynamo theory are not willing to concede that the magnetic field is decaying, whereas Lamb’s theory requires this decay and relates the decay rate to the conductivity and the size of the earth’s core.” (Pg. 11)
He explains, “It can be shown that the earth’s core has a self-inductance… and that the resistance of the core is fantastically small… As one would expect then, the decay time for the earth’s magnetic field is quite long. The time constant has been computed from the observational data … and was found… to have a value of 1,970 years. This is an interesting time constant. It means that the value of the earth’s magnetic field in the decade of 1970 A.D. is only about 37% of what it was at the time of the birth of Christ.” (Pg. 17)
Later, he adds, “Some … anomalies may alter the earth’s field over large regions of the earth. Sometimes the anomaly may cause a magnetic field that is larger than the dipole field in that region. However, when averaged over the whole earth, these anomalies are much smaller than the dipole field, otherwise the compass would not be described as having ‘north-seeking’ and ‘south-seeking’ poles… It is the magnetic field of the earth, the dipole field, that shields the earth from much of the solar wind. It also ‘guides’ much of the radiation in toward the magnetic polar regions. It is this magnetic polar effect that locates the auroral zones.” (Pg. 39)
He includes a chart on page 26 with his calculations for the magnetic field from 1 million years B.C., up to 1970 A.D. Interestingly, he asserts that at 50,000 years B.C., the Earth's magnetic field would be the same as that of a Pulsar; and at 30,000 years B.C., it would be same as a White Dwarf star; and at 8,000 B.C. [10,000 years before the present being the 'outside limit' age for the Earth, to some 'young earth' creationists] it would equal that of a Magnetic Star. (Methinks, something is wrong with Barnes' extrapolation...)
He acknowledges, “[Some] believe that the present decay rate is temporary and not indicative of its long-time behavior. They contend that the earth’s magnetic field has reversed itself at irregular intervals and only temporarily loses its magnetic field, somehow maintaining the same average value of the earth’s magnetic field throughout ‘geologic time.’ The reversed direction of magnetization which has been observed in some rocks is interpreted as evidence of reversals of the earth’s magnetic field.” (Pg. 43)
He continues, “Because of their need to justify an age of billions of years for the earth’s magnetic field, evolutionists suppose that some type of dynamo has kept the current running for billions of years. They have hypothesized ‘dynamos’ of various kinds, but none of these dynamo theories is without its difficulties.” (Pg. 44)
He concludes, “It is clear that paleomagnetic arguments for reversal of the earth’s magnetic field are not conclusive and depend in the main on arbitrary interpretations of selectively chosen samples… No acceptable dynamo theory to sustain or oscillate the earth’s magnetic field has ever been conceived nor is one very likely.”
Critics of creationism most often cite magnetic field reversals as the refutation of Barnes’ argument; at any rate, more than 50 years after this book was published, the magnetic field should by now have gone down to almost nothing---which is obviously not the case. (Barnes, like many evangelicals, probably expected the Second Coming no later than 1988.)
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews