Replies

Of course, creation scientists predict that Saturn is young, just as its rings are young. And as more evidence comes in, I’m quite confident that the entire planet of Saturn will tell us she is young, just as Mercury is telling us she is young!!! For more, see the following:

Mercury’s Magnetic Field is Young! (Yet another creationist prediction confirmed by the evidence)

by D. Russell Humphreys

http://creation.com/mercury-s-magnetic-field-is-young

Of course, creation scientists predict that Saturn is young,
_______

LOL. It would be extremely remarkable if an ICR writer posited an old Saturn. Given that everything they believe centers on a 6000 year old heaven/earth combo, creation scientists believe everything is young by definition.

Mercury’s Magnetic Field is Young! (Yet another creationist prediction confirmed by the evidence)
by D. Russell Humphreys

http://creation.com/mercury-s-magnetic-field-is-young

I'm glad you brought this up, GGG, because Humphrey's analysis is an awesome example of cutting-edge creation science research that I just absolutely love, so I'll spell it out for everyone who might not be familiar.

Unlike convoluted evo attempts to fit data with higher-order equations and so-called "phenomenological degrees of freedom" (i.e. "we don't know what we're talking about so we'll guess"), Humphrey's uses an Occam's Razor-based approach (the very principle of science) and bases his data on a simple, strictly linear fit against a semilog scale, that is, exponential decay, as shown below.

If his white-hole cosmology is correct, it means that the magnetic field of Mercury, immediately after the universe expanded from a geocentric shell of water approximately 6000 years ago, was at a value he previously calculated was at a value of approximately 10^23 A-m^2, as outlined in his original 1984 work, as shown below:

When Humphey's originally did this calculation and made his curve, he only had current data from the 1975 Mariner probe data; but he made the prediction that the magnetic field of Mercury should keep decaying at the same rate. In 2008, the Messenger probe released another measurement of the field. Both probe measurements are on the lower right of the above plot. Now, if we zoom in on the lower right:

We now see that the Messenger data indeed measures a smaller field that perfectly fits Humphreys' prediction (within the statistical error). This kind of agreement would be impossible if there was no validity to Humphreys' white hole cosmology model.

My FRiends, this is creation science in action, making the kind of quantitative predictions that evo scientists fail at time and time again. How anyone can continue to mock the efforts of creation science and stick to evo science when faced with evidence like this is beyond me - it goes to show that there must be an agenda propping up the the evo efforts.

The agreement in data and theory offered by Creation is fantastic - our God is an awesome God!