Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bane · 06-07-2002, 06:11 PM

Quote:

I did Astronomy in college. I read that post and was almost tempted to join in the fun. However, I've had to put up with that kind of nonesense several times in the past and am getting tired of correcting people.

I don't blame you. This guy reminds me of Kent Hovind. He keeps attacking abiogenesis not evolution. He's the king of strawmen.

Quote:

The stuff at the bottom of the 'theforce' link is beyond argument, but it is interesting he trusts scientists to measure the magnetism of lunar basalts, but not their ages (which are all greater than 3 Ga). Since God has to create the rocks with radionuclides looking like >3 billion years of radioactive decay, why shouldn't he just create them with magnetic fields too instead of mucking about with water (or whatever the guy is rambling about)?

That's an excellent point. I guess to him if the scientists aren't validating the bible then they are evolutionist scientists intent on discrediting the the bible?

Deimos · 06-07-2002, 06:49 PM

Mwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahah

Humphries magnetic field decay hypothesis lacks any relation to reality. His model consists of the decay of current in a conducting sphere. This completey ignores the fact that the Earth's interior is a dynamic system of convecting conductive fluids. This requires a magnetohydrodynamic model, one that takes an enormous amount of computation to 'solve'. That Humphries ignores the true nature of Earth's interior is sufficient in of itself to refute his hypothesis.

Interestingly, when the Earth's interior is modelled according to its true nature, we get some pretty interesting results -

<a href="http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html" target="_blank">Geodynamo</a>

I wonder if our creationist friend can explain to us how the moon is almost entirely solidified (verified by seismometers on its surface) yet the lunar maria were formed from very fluid magma eruptions. Can he lay out the calculations that show how the moon could have cooled so quickly in less than 10k years?

AdamWho · 06-08-2002, 05:09 PM

Even if a creationist did great scientific work it still doesn't validate their religious beliefs.
Newton was religious and he practically created physics, therefore we should all be religious???

Answerer · 06-08-2002, 08:30 PM

Haha, I just treat it as a joke.

beausoleil · 06-09-2002, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AdamWho:
<strong>Even if a creationist did great scientific work it still doesn't validate their religious beliefs.
Newton was religious and he practically created physics, therefore we should all be religious???</strong>

Indeed not. Scientific results are supposed to stand apart from the beliefs of the scientists involved. In reality people aren't dispassionate, of course, but the principle should hold.

I had a grad student once who was a committed fundamentalist christian and wrote a thesis on an aspect of the formation of the solar system.

Bane · 06-10-2002, 05:30 PM

I have no doubt that one can be knowledgeable about a certain field of science and be a fundamentalist. Curt Wise is an example.

This guy's your classic loon though. Does Kent Hovind have any brothers? Maybe one that was separated at birth?

Tim Thompson · 06-11-2002, 12:03 PM

On the matter of Humphreys' predictions, that is briefly covered in my T.O. entry "<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html" target="_blank">On Creation Science and the Alleged Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field</a>", which I have not updated since 1997.

Humphreys prediction was that the magnetic fields of Uranus & Neptune would be "on the order of 10^24 J/T". You can see right away that anything from 10^23 through 10^25 will be a "hit", since the prediction is only on the order of magnitude. As I point out in my FAQ thingy, Humphreys already knew that the strength of Jupiter's magnetic dipole was 1.6 x 10^27, for Saturn it was 4.3 x 10^25, and for Earth it was 7.9 x 10^22. Uranus & Neptune fit nicely between Saturn & Earth, so "about 10^24" is one of those no-brainer guesses that could hardly be wrong. And since his theory was built around one free parameter, all he has to do is fiddle in a bit and "voila".

So, yeah, he predicted the field strength, more or less, but it was not an awe inspiring achievement.

However, since then Humphreys has been hard at work on his theory, and now has a new paper out: <a href="http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm" target="_blank">The Earth's Magnetic Field is Still Losing Energy</a> (from the June 2002 CRSQ). He has computed the total energy of the field from the family of IGRF published models, and determined (with perhaps one "glitch") that the total energy is decreasing over time.

He may well be right, but I think he still overplays his hand. He makes the same mistake that Barnes made, in assuming that any decay measured over the epoch of the data, must be constant with time, even over periods far in excess of the data epoch. That makes for a weak theory at best, a point Humphreys does not apporpriately appreciate.

And, as others have already pointed out, he has always either ignored dynamo theory altogether, or tried to replace it with an alternative of his own. I don't think has has gone as far as did Barnes, who flatly claimed that dynamo theory is impossible (by grossly misusing Cowlings's Theorem). I have discussed this in my FAQ file as well.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-07-2002, 06:49 PM	#12
Deimos Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Posts: 97	Mwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahah Humphries magnetic field decay hypothesis lacks any relation to reality. His model consists of the decay of current in a conducting sphere. This completey ignores the fact that the Earth's interior is a dynamic system of convecting conductive fluids. This requires a magnetohydrodynamic model, one that takes an enormous amount of computation to 'solve'. That Humphries ignores the true nature of Earth's interior is sufficient in of itself to refute his hypothesis. Interestingly, when the Earth's interior is modelled according to its true nature, we get some pretty interesting results - <a href="http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html" target="_blank">Geodynamo</a> I wonder if our creationist friend can explain to us how the moon is almost entirely solidified (verified by seismometers on its surface) yet the lunar maria were formed from very fluid magma eruptions. Can he lay out the calculations that show how the moon could have cooled so quickly in less than 10k years?

06-08-2002, 05:09 PM	#13
AdamWho Contributor Join Date: May 2001 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 13,389	Even if a creationist did great scientific work it still doesn't validate their religious beliefs. Newton was religious and he practically created physics, therefore we should all be religious???

06-08-2002, 08:30 PM	#14
Answerer Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,956	Haha, I just treat it as a joke.

06-10-2002, 05:30 PM	#16
Bane Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 180	I have no doubt that one can be knowledgeable about a certain field of science and be a fundamentalist. Curt Wise is an example. This guy's your classic loon though. Does Kent Hovind have any brothers? Maybe one that was separated at birth?

06-11-2002, 12:03 PM	#17
Tim Thompson Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Pasadena, CA, USA Posts: 455	On the matter of Humphreys' predictions, that is briefly covered in my T.O. entry "<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html" target="_blank">On Creation Science and the Alleged Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field</a>", which I have not updated since 1997. Humphreys prediction was that the magnetic fields of Uranus & Neptune would be "on the order of 10^24 J/T". You can see right away that anything from 10^23 through 10^25 will be a "hit", since the prediction is only on the order of magnitude. As I point out in my FAQ thingy, Humphreys already knew that the strength of Jupiter's magnetic dipole was 1.6 x 10^27, for Saturn it was 4.3 x 10^25, and for Earth it was 7.9 x 10^22. Uranus & Neptune fit nicely between Saturn & Earth, so "about 10^24" is one of those no-brainer guesses that could hardly be wrong. And since his theory was built around one free parameter, all he has to do is fiddle in a bit and "voila". So, yeah, he predicted the field strength, more or less, but it was not an awe inspiring achievement. However, since then Humphreys has been hard at work on his theory, and now has a new paper out: <a href="http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm" target="_blank">The Earth's Magnetic Field is Still Losing Energy</a> (from the June 2002 CRSQ). He has computed the total energy of the field from the family of IGRF published models, and determined (with perhaps one "glitch") that the total energy is decreasing over time. He may well be right, but I think he still overplays his hand. He makes the same mistake that Barnes made, in assuming that any decay measured over the epoch of the data, must be constant with time, even over periods far in excess of the data epoch. That makes for a weak theory at best, a point Humphreys does not apporpriately appreciate. And, as others have already pointed out, he has always either ignored dynamo theory altogether, or tried to replace it with an alternative of his own. I don't think has has gone as far as did Barnes, who flatly claimed that dynamo theory is impossible (by grossly misusing Cowlings's Theorem). I have discussed this in my FAQ file as well.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.