This is Part 2 of the ten part blog debunking the claims made on CreationEvidence.org’s “Evidence for Creation.” This blog examines point #2.
STATEMENT: ”Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.”
RESPONSE: Dr. Thomas Barnes did NOT write the “definitive work in his field.” Barnes arguments are considered by the scientific community to be pseudoscience or fringe science. His arguments on the decaying magnetic field were never published in mainstream science journals because they lacked validity in model. Nevertheless, nowhere else in this argument is he mentioned. It simply states that he published the definitive work in his field, but never states what he wrote. So why is he mentioned? This statement completely fails to give validity to the argument as a whole; if anything, it detracts from the argument.
As there is no one else cited within this argument, we will assume that the remainder of this argument is based on Barnes’ work.
(Note: Barnes was a young-earth creationist, believing that the earth was no more than a few thousand years old, and was prone to taking data and fitting it to meet his preconceived conclusion. Henceforth, his model of magnetic decay lacked validity.)
STATEMENT: “Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth’s magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the molecules necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth’s entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.”
RESPONSE: ”Empirical measurement of the earth’s magnetic field does not show exponential decay. Yes, an exponential curve can be fit to historical measurements, but an exponential curve can be fit to any set of points. A straight line fits better” -Claim CD701 (talkorigins.org) (italics added). As stated before, Barnes’ model was invalid; further, his methods were questionable, having relied on “an obsolete model of the earth’s interior” (CD701).
CONCLUSION: The entire argument made in point #2 is based on Thomas Barnes’ work on magnetic field decay. However, as has been shown, Barnes’ work was based on a false premise (an obsolete, invalid model). Barnes’ conclusion is therefore inaccurate, and the argument for a young earth based on magnetic field decay is therefore false.
Please visit our advertisers!
