Posted on 08/27/2009 10:11:05 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
A NASA spacecraft is again testing a creationist theory about the magnetic fields of planets. On 14 January 2008, the Messenger spacecraft, made by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory for NASA, flew by Mercury, the innermost planet of the solar system, in the first of several close encounters before it finally settles into a steady orbit around Mercury in 2011.[1] As it passed, its ‘magnetometer’ made quick measurements of Mercury’s magnetic field and transmitted them successfully back to Earth. Probably it will take the Messenger team several months to process the magnetic data accurately.
I’m looking forward to the early results because in 1984 I made creation-based predictions regarding the magnetic fields of a number of planets, including that of Mercury.[2] Spacecraft measurements[3,4] have validated three of the predictions, highlighted in red in the web version of the 1984 article. A fourth prediction, in the conclusion, is this...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Ping!
Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
Lol!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Russell+Humphreys,+Ph.D.+fraud&start=10&sa=N
plenty of scooby snacks for the masses
I think most of the pages on the top 10 for that search are pointing out Darwinist frauds, my friend!
Thanks for the ping!
I would like someone to explain how this supports creationism.
They are a group of diverse projects and programs. Each largely independent of others but all vying for their piece of the budget pie.
Me too.
Origin of the Earth’s magnetic field
The Humphreys Proposal
Dr Humphreys proposed that God first created the earth out of water.1 He based this on several Scriptures, e.g. 2 Peter 3:5 which concludes that the earth was formed out of water and by water. After this, God would have transformed much of the water into other substances like rock minerals. Now water contains hydrogen atoms, and the nucleus of a hydrogen atom is a tiny magnet. Normally these magnets cancel out so water as a whole is almost non-magnetic. But Humphreys proposed that God created the water with the nuclear magnets aligned. Immediately after creation, they would form a more random arrangement, which would cause the earth’s magnetic field to decay. This would generate current in the core, which would then decay according to Barnes’ model, apart from many reversals in the Flood year as Humphreys’ model states.
Observational support from the fields of other planets
Dr Humphreys also calculated the fields of other planets (and the sun) based on this model. The important factors are the mass of the object, the size of the core and how well it conducts electricity, plus the assumption that their original material was water. His model explains features which are deep puzzles to dynamo theorists. For example, evolutionists refer to ‘the enigma of lunar magnetism’2—the moon once had a strong magnetic field, although it rotates only once a month. Also, according to evolutionary models of its origin, it never had a molten core, necessary for a dynamo to work. Also, Mercury has a far stronger magnetic field than dynamo theory expects from a planet rotating 59 times slower than Earth.
Even more importantly, in 1984, Dr Humphreys made some predictions of the field strengths of Uranus and Neptune, two giant gas planets beyond Saturn. His predictions were about 100,000 times the evolutionary dynamo predictions. The two rival models were inadvertently put to the test when the Voyager 2 spacecraft flew past these planets in 1986 and 1989. The fields for Uranus and Neptune3 were just as Humphreys had predicted.4 Yet many anti-creationists call creation ‘unscientific’ because it supposedly makes no predictions!
Humphreys’ model also explains why the moons of Jupiter that have cores have magnetic fields, while Callisto, which lacks a core, also lacks a field.5 (See Dr Humphreys’ online article Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation)
http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young
Even though the author has still not explained how the water on all the bodies in the universe has morphed into their current compositions, he continues to contradict himself.
His theory requires that magnetic fields decay at a consistent rate since the creation 6000 years ago, yet the sun's magnetic field continues to fluctuate every 11 years or so. The author has no explanation for this spectacular failure of his theory.
Additionally his own calculations show that, based on his theory, Jupiter was formed over 41,000 years ago. 35,000 years before creation. No explanation at all for this dramatic failure.
The final blow is that the current dynamic theories already explain magnetic fields for those objects in the solar system where it's been measured. It requires no alchemical miracles to fit the existing data as well as explains the earth's own fluctuating magnetic field. Something the author's theory hasn't addressed.
In this case ‘Ph.D’ really means “Piled hip. Deep.”
(epic science fail)
Astro-Space Pings
His graduate and undegarduate degrees are in physics.
It almost looks like he didn’t write this, but who knows.
Even if that’s a correct analysis, it’s awfully humorous...he’s off 35,000 years while the anti-God crowd is off...
what...
ga-jillions and ga-jillions of years??? LOL!
I just happened to click on the science keyword and this article came up. Is this satire?
Tragically no. It's either a sign of the Marching Morons, or part of a grand swindle.
I actually was serious when I asked. I thought this article was a spoof from the Onion or something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.