Re: The Earth's magnetic field

John W Burgeson wrote:

> One thing you have to admire about the YECers.
>
> They take a lickin and come back tickin. *
>
> http://www.creationequation.com/Earths_Magnetic_Field.htm
>
> The Earth's Magnetic Field: Closing a Loophole in the Case for its Youth
> By: D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.*
>
> Burgy
>
> Ubi Caritas
>
> * Aploogies to TIMEX who makes pretty good watches.
>
> ________________________________________________________________

I thought that I would check the Humphries paper on my own before looking
elsewhere.

I notice that Humphries quotes papers by Coe & Prevot (1989) and Coe et al.
(1994) as evidence in support for his 1986 prediction that "rapid
(day-to-day, week to week) reversals of the magnetic field during the
Genesis flood, and strong fluctuations in the field for several millenia
after the flood. " When I looked at the cited papers I found that they were
concerned with unexpectedly rapid change in a *single* reversal and not
between reversals, and so these papers provide no support whatsoever for
Humphries on that point.

Humphries has recently used published data indicating that over the 30-year
period 1970-2000 the energy in the earth's magnetic field has had a 1.41 +/-
0.16 % net loss of energy. He says the "At that rate, the field would lose
half its energy every 1465 +/- 166 years. That rate implies the field is
young." What a nonsensical extrapolation and non sequitur!

Don Nield
Received on Fri Mar 19 19:40:14 2004