The solar system is 6,000 years old. Its all about water

[EarthScienceguy]

Below is the famous paper that Russ Humphreys authored in 1984.

http://www.sedin.org/crs_samp/21_3a1.htm

In this paper he correctly predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune before the voyager flew by them in the late 1980's. He based his theory on a universe that is 6000 years old. Using the following equation.

[quote]So the magnetic moment M at any time t after creation would be:

M = Mc exp(-t/T)

His equations also accurately predicts the Moon small gravitational field that is just in surface rocks and long with Mars Magnetic field that is also in surface rocks.

He later went on and used the same equations to predict Mercury's magnetic field decrease.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 1 by EarthScienceguy]

His equations also accurately predicts the Moon small gravitational field that is just in surface rocks and long with Mars Magnetic field that is also in surface rocks.

Oh please ... not more of this nonsense! This is your worst one yet, and that's saying something. Why not post this kind of junk in the Random Ramblings section where it belongs? It certainly isn't science, and it has nothing to do with religion either (ignoring the fact that it is all dead wrong).

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 1 by EarthScienceguy]

Why are the planets not still water?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 3 by DeMotts]

Why are the planets not still water?

And crazier (if that's possible) ... this is the blocked out, bolded red text at the top of the article:

NOTE: In this paper, Dr. Humphreys makes predictions for the strengths of the magnetic fields for Uranus and Neptune, well before these magnetic fields were measured by the Voyager spacecraft. His predictions were "right on," whereas the predictions of evolutionists were not.

When did these people decide that evolutionists went around predicting the strengths of magnetic fields on other planets? Too funny!

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 1 by EarthScienceguy]

Below is the famous paper that Russ Humphreys authored in 1984.

http://www.sedin.org/crs_samp/21_3a1.htm

Here is an extract from the conclusion of the paper:

Water was the raw material of creation. This theory would not work using the present composition of the solar system.

So, either the theory doesn't work, or there is some mechanism by which all of the water from creation morphed into the materials making up the solar system. I know which one my money is on.

[rikuoamero]

To calculate the magnetic moment of a planet at creation, we must know the original material. In the previous article I presented Scriptural evidence that God originally created the Earth as a sphere of pure water. One of the Scriptures is the last part of 2 Peter 3:5 (NASB): ". . . and the earth was formed out of water and by water." Shortly after that, God must have transformed much of the water into other matter, such as iron, silicon, minerals, and rock.

I know of no explicit Scripture which says that God created the heavenly bodies in the same way He did the Earth. But there is a hint, perhaps. The Hebrew word translated "heavens" in Genesis 1 consists of two other Hebrew words which mean "there, waters."5 Let us assume that God created the Sun, Moon, and planets as water, which He then transformed.

Apparently, God is like Ed Elric. He's an alchemist.
[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

Notice what Guy, and Humphrey present as their 'evidence'. Lines from a story. He asserts the Earth was made out of water and to back that up...quotes 2 Peter.
It looks like what Humphrey is doing here is just this

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 3 by DeMotts]

Why are the planets not still water?

And crazier (if that's possible) ... this is the blocked out, bolded red text at the top of the article:

NOTE: In this paper, Dr. Humphreys makes predictions for the strengths of the magnetic fields for Uranus and Neptune, well before these magnetic fields were measured by the Voyager spacecraft. His predictions were "right on," whereas the predictions of evolutionists were not.

When did these people decide that evolutionists went around predicting the strengths of magnetic fields on other planets? Too funny!

I'd also just like to quote EarthScienceGuy from another thread in which he condescended to us fellow evolutionists:

[Replying to post 19 by brunumb]

Do you even know science works? If a theory cannot explain observations then it is an untenable position.

I am anxious to hear how this scientific theory explains the observation that the planets are currently not 100% water. Does this scientific theory include magic? Most good scientific theories contain magic.

[EarthScienceguy]

Below is the famous paper that Russ Humphreys authored in 1984.

http://www.sedin.org/crs_samp/21_3a1.htm

In this paper he correctly predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune before the voyager flew by them in the late 1980's. He based his theory on a universe that is 6000 years old. Using the following equation.

So the magnetic moment M at any time t after creation would be:

M = Mc exp(-t/T)

His equations also accurately predicts the Moon small gravitational field that is just in surface rocks and long with Mars Magnetic field that is also in surface rocks.

He later went on and used the same equations to predict Mercury's magnetic field decrease.

ADDED

In this theory 5 assumptions are made.

1. That the fifth fundamental force that there has to be create our universe is a living being that has characteristics different from man. (The fifth fundamental force has to be different than anything in this universe.)
Characteristics of the fifth fundamental force (from Sean Carroll’s (atheist cosmologist) description of the Characteristics the “mother universe would have to have)

a. Has to be eternal (There would be no such thing as time because time is a construct of this universe but what that would mean)

b. To be eternal especially as Carroll’s describes this universe would mean it must be all-powerful. Meaning that it could never lose energy. Anyway you slice it to create an infinite number of universe would mean that energy could not decrease. He would describe this as time running in both directions.

c. This universe would also have to be infinite to create an infinite number of universes.

d. There has to be a fifth force because the 4 fundamental forces of this universe are tied to the space of this universe. So if there is no space then there are no forces.

e. The fifth force would have to be different. Because even if the 4 fundamental forces do exist in this ‘mother universe,� they do not have to act as they do in this universe.

2. God made a ball of water as described in Genesis 1 with all of the protons in hydrogen spinning the same way. It would have to be hydrogen because it has but a single proton and proton spin in the nucleus is paired like electron spin is.

3. After the creation of the ball of water. The water molecules alignment would be broken creating great electrical currents in the ball of water.

4. Humphreys did not say this but experiments out of Russia say this can happen. That these currents that were created made all of the elements that we see today in a process known as a Z-pinch.

5. Then the God guided these atoms together to form life.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 3 by DeMotts]

Post 8

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 6 by rikuoamero]

Post 8 answers this.