Mercury's Magnetic Field

After studying Mercury in one of my astronomy books, I did some research on it and find the proposal ( that something crashed into it made it the way it is) is sorrowfully lacking in creativity and proof. I make this statement based on the fact that Mercury has a magnetic field. Correct me if I'm wrong, but any magnet that is hit hard enough will lose its magnetic properties, won't it? With the explanations prposed by dynamo theory, I'm more inclined to belive the creationist explanation.This message has been edited by christ_fanatic, 09-28-2005 08:06 PMThis message has been edited by christ_fanatic, 09-28-2005 08:07 PMThis message has been edited by christ_fanatic, 09-29-2005 07:39 PMThis message has been edited by christ_fanatic, 10-03-2005 04:01 PM

Evolution is a framework in which all evidence is interpreted (as is creationism) and if there is evidence that does not fit into the model, then the model must be modified or rejected. In relation to evolution, there has to be an explanation of how the magnetic fields of the planets have lasted for billins of years. This where the dynamo (and Mercury) come in. Mercury is an odd planet, in that it has a magnetic field where the dynamo theory says it shouldn't. What I'am asking is if I've done my homework right, and if not, explain how evolution does account for the magnetic field of Mercury.This message has been edited by christ_fanatic, 09-29-2005 07:00 PM

The way I define evolition is because I see the references to different types of evolution everywhere. Ex, the evolution of the solar system, the universe's evolution, (both in Universe by Design -Danny Faulkner) I've seen evolution used to refer to changes in stellar, geological (my Biology textbook, Ill get the rest of the info tomorrow) and biological changes. Which led me to define evolution as I did. My first ref is at MercuryThe Tiny Planet that Causes Big Problems for Evolution | Answers in Genesis
this is where I started after my eyewitness Universe book (I'll get the copyright and other info tomorrow). I will get the other websites son enough.This message has been edited by christ_fanatic, 09-29-2005 07:33 PM

First off, I apologize for not knowing the deault use of evolution. Second, you say AiG is careless in using the term evolution, please document. Third, you act as if creation scientists have no training in their fields, which is obviously not true, as many of them have doctorates in their field(s). I'll ref thiis: Bios | Answers in Genesis If there are actual scientists here, I would be honored to talk with them. Fourth, but most relevant, I was not going to criticize the dating methods, I was merely asking for an explanation of the topic.This message has been edited by christ_fanatic, 10-01-2005 09:11 AMThis message has been edited by christ_fanatic, 10-01-2005 09:38 AM

As it doesn't matter to me, just put it where you think it fits.

The creat. explanation that I know is reffed here: The Institute for Creation Research
As its been used and tested before and have seen no refutations of it, I support it.

The creat. explanation is based on 2Pet. 3:5 (I think) which basically says God made the earth from water. Humphreys claimed that this applied to the rest of the planets as well. He then calculated the magnetic fields of the planets in the solar system (and the sun) and as this was before we knew the strength of Uranus and Neptune, he used those as predictions of his model. He had set a maximum for the strength of planetary field strength that could falsify his theory if it was exceeded by anything save the sun. When Voyager 2 passed Uranus, Humphreys was vindicated but not the secular scientists, but both sides correctly predicted Neptune's. I havenn't found a refutation of this theory yet, so it holds promise for creat.