[whattajoke]

What I see as his "theory" is that the magnetic moment of a celestial body is related to its mass... What is not is the fact that Jupiter has to be fudged in since it would show an increase in magnetic moment using the same k factor as the other bodies. Plus you can see that Mercury is anomolous in decay rate.

Is this the polite fellow-creationist way of saying you feel Humphrey's is a nutter? I'm not trying to be coy, I'm serious. Several creationists (Hugh Ross, notably) have called out Humphreys for bringing mockery to creationism.

[AndrewC]

Is this the polite fellow-creationist way of saying you feel Humphrey's is a nutter?

No, it is a polite way of describing what I see in the data and his equations. Kinda like the following.