Re: Russell Humphreys boast!??
- --- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote (post #7022):
> I spoke to a fellow yesterday who was talking up Russell[snip]
> Humphreys and some great thing he did for the cause of
> "young-earth, creation-science" and gravity and planets and
"Is the Earth's Magnetic Field Young?"
by Joe Meert
| Humphreys has argued in the creationist literature that the
| Earth's magnetic field is in terminal decay and that its
| maximum age can be no more than 10,000 years. As shown
| above, his conclusions are based on undocumented reversals
| in the archeomagnetic record, a mistaken conclusion
| regarding the time it takes for the magnetic field to
| reverse and an extrapolation based on the last 30 years of
| magnetic observation. Furthermore, Humphreys argues that
| the magnetic field of the earth at creation was much higher
| than the present-day value. This conjecture is totally at
| odds with observational data and thus is mere speculation.
| Humphreys does accept reversals, and if they all happened
| in the year of the flood, then they would occur roughly at
| the rate of 1 per day. There is no observational evidence
| to support this frequency of reversals. However, if
| Humphreys is correct that all the reversal occurred in the
| year of the flood, then the strata corresponding to the
| flood must extend from the Archean to the most recent
| sedimentation since reversals are well-documented in that
| interval. Humphreys refuses to publish his work in
| mainstream literature or to present his ideas to mainstream
| science via annual conferences.
Of course, we all know that the reason Humphreys runs away from
professional geophysicists and geologists is because he already
realizes that his ideas cannot stand the light of day among
professionals in the relevant areas of science.