>There are those of us who not aware of the data by which these 'proofs have
>discredited' and would be very much interested in hearing the case against
>them.
I am going to come out of lurker status for this. Discussions of these and
other issues are found in my book.
Magnetic field.
It is true that the observations of the Magnetic field show that it is
decaying. This is the raw data through 1965
DATE MAGNETIC FIELD STRENGTH
(10^22 GAUSS CM3)
1829 8.45
1835 8.56
1845 8.49
1880 8.36
1885 8.35
1885 8.34
1885 8.33
1900 8.20
1920 8.17
1922 8.17
1940 8.10
1942 8.01
1945 8.01
1945 8.07
1955 8.06
1960 8.02
1965 8.00
M.W.MCELHINNY, PALAEOMAGNETISM
AND PLATE TECTONICS,CAMBRIDGE
UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1973, P. 7
The data implies that the magnetic field will approach zero in about 1200
years from now. Barnes then ASSUMES that once the field strength goes to
zero there is no way to start it up again with the opposite polarity. He
writes(Barnes, 1981, p. 40):
"But no valid mechanism for accomplishing this 'reversal' in the earth's
magnetic field has yet been developed, not even theoretically."
Barnes then assumed that the magnetic field was decaying with a half-life of
1400 years.(Barnes 1983, p. 33). By assuming this form of decay, one
assures that the world was young. He does not investigate linear or
sinusoidal variations in the Earth's magnetic field. He simply rejects
sinusoidal because he rejects an ability of a magnetic field to cross zero
and reverse.
In 1982, a good friend of mine pointed out that the data clearly shows
reversals of a magnetic field. Every 11 years the sun's magnetic field
reverses. (Montie, 1982, p. 196) This is known as the Hale cycle. So if a
magnetic field can cross zero on the sun, what is the problem on the earth?
Remnant magnetism would say that the field has reversed. All Carboniferous
age rocks are reversed magnetic polarity. This means that rocks which
contain the major coal reserves and contain huge deposits of crinoids, are
also reversely magnetised. Many other reversals are also seen in rocks of
various ages.
Because of these problems, Russell Humphreys changed the creationist
magnetic model to allow for reversals. The validity of his model requires
that the sediment of the earth be deposited in a flood. There is much
evidence against that (see my web page at the bottom). Thus, Humphrey's
support for the young earth is circular in that it must assume that the
sedimentary remnant magnetism was preserved during the flood, which presumes
a young earth.
As a final note, there has recently been developed a mathematical model for
magnetic reversals which behaves exactly as the sedimentary remnant
magnetism seems to indicate. (Glatzmaier and Roberts, 1995)
In spite of Mark Montie's observation of the sun's reversals in 1981 in the
Creation Research Society Quarterly, Morris and Morris (1989, p. 55) write:
"The analysis developed by Dr. Barnes is based on sound physics
careful calculations, and solid data. The dynamo theory, and the
fluctuating and reversing magnetic field concept (except on a localized
basis), are little more than ad hoc notions, with no sound basis in either
theory or measurement. The only real reason for rejecting the
first and accepting the second is that the first supports recent
special creation; the second tries to salvage a bankrupt
evolutionary uniformitarianism."
They simply refuse to tell their readers any problems with their view. This
is intellectually dishonest.
Speed of light
When I was a young earth creationists, I very mistakenly advocated one of
these views although mine was never as popular as that advocated by Barry
Setterfield (Setterfield, 1981). General Relativity which is one of the most
accurately tested physical theories is based upon the concept that the speed
of light is constant. IF the speed of light were not constant, the
predictions of General Relativity would not be observed. But beyond this, I
along with Harold Slusher and Tom Barnes, published a list of problems with
Setterfields views (Morton et al, 1983). Setterfield's views leads to the
following predictions, all of which have been falsified:
There would have been 417 days per year at the time of Christ. Setterfield
admits that the fundamental quantity of mass is proportional to 1/c^2.
(Setterfield, 1983, p. 66) Thus a larger C means a smaller mass and
conservation of rotational momentum requires that the the earth rotate
faster if the mass grows smaller.
The heat given off by radioactive elements would have been so great as to
melt the earth (23,052 calories per gram over the first three days of creation.
The various physical constants would also vary in Setterfield's view but
the data he cites varies in a fashion inconsistent with his theory.
Of course, once again, young-earth creationists will not tell you what is
wrong with their views.
Paluxy man tracks.
John Morris, the Author of Tracking those Incredible Dinosaurs, did the one
honest thing that a researcher can do when faced with problems about his
view. He admitted that he was wrong and removed the book from publication.
He wrote (Morris, 1986, p. ii):
"The only way creationist claims could be invalidated was for (1)
features of the prints not visible beforehand to be exposed by
erosion and (2) for the testimonies of the "old timers' to be
discredited. As unlikely as this may seem, just such a scenario
may be taking place today."
"Due to an unknown cause, certain of the prints once labeled
human are taking on a completely different character. The prints
in the trail I have called the 'Taylor trail' consisting of
numerous readily visible elongated impressions in a left-right
sequence, have changed into what appear to be tridactyl (three-
toes) prints, evidently of some unidentified dinosaur."
Thus what was believed to have been human tracks actually were dinosaur
tracks as proven by years of observations. Unfortunately there are rumors
that John is now going back on this. The local creationist leader here, Don
Patten said in one of his meetings that the book was to be re-issued.
There are several features of the Paluxy site, 70 miles or so sw of Dallas,
that don't fit the creationists scheme. First, there are 15,000 feet of
sedimentary rocks below that region. If the sediments are deposited in a
global flood, then there are 50 feet per day sedimentation. Why are humans
still alive at the top of the local geologic column? If you ever sleep
during the year, you would wake up covered by 16 feet of mud. 50 feet per
day is about 2 feet per hour. So these humans, walking with the preflood
dinosaurs are able to go an entire year without sleeping. Amazing.
Secondly, there are large and small bivalves in the sediments covering the
tracks. These immobile creatures, according to young earth doctrine, should
have been buried at the bottom of the geologic column but here they are at
the top. Since young-earth creationists often claim that man is at the top
because they were so smart and could run from the flood, does this make the
bivalves lying above man tracks, smarter and quicker than man? This doesn't
make sense.
I would suggest that you visit a web page by Glen Kuban. Do a Yahoo search
on him and you will find his web page. He is an expert on the problems of
Paluxy.
Barnes,Thomas G., 1981. "Satellite Observations Confirm the Decline of the
Earth's Magnetic Field," Creation Research Society Quarterly June , 1981, p. 40
Barnes, Thomas G. 1983., Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field,
(El Cajon, Institute for Creation Research)
Glatzmaier, Gary A., and Paul H. Roberts, 1995, "A Three-
Dimensional Self-Consistent Computer Simulation of a Geomagnetic
Field Reversal," Nature, Sept. 21, 1995, p. 203-208
Montie, Mark, 1982. "More Study Needed on Magnetic Fields," Creation
Research Society Quarterly, 19:3, December, 1982, p. 196
Morris, Henry M.,and John D. Morris, 1989. Science, Scripture, and the
Young Earth, (El Cajon: Institute for Creation Research, 1989), P. 55
Morris, John D. 1986, "The Paluxy River Mystery," Impact, 151, Jan. 1986. p. ii
Morton, G. R., Slusher, H. S., Bartman, R. C., and Barnes, T. G., (1983).
Comments on the Velocity of Light. Creation Research Society Quarterly.
20:63-65.
Setterfield, Barry, 1981. "The Velocity of Light and The Age of the
Universe, Part II, Ex Nihilo, 4:3, Oct. 1981.
Setterfield, Barry, 1983, "Reply to Comments," Creation Research Society
Quarterly, 20:1, June 1983;; 66-68
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm