JUST THE FACTS PLEASE!

READING: Gen 1:1-10 If we fail to arm our children with the facts they need in order to refute the false theories regarding how the earth and mankind came to be, we are setting them up to question all of Gods word and the churchs very reason for existing. We will lose them to the world. Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.

Ps 33:8-9 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. First, lets examine the Scientific Method. 1. Observation of facts. 2. Statement and Definition of Problem. 3. Formation of Hypothesis. 4. Deduction from Hypothesis of Prediction. 5. Experimentation. 6. Formation of Theory or Law. ******The Oxford Dictionary defines science: a branch of study which is concerned with a connected body of demonstrated truths or observed facts. I. CHRIST SUMMED UP THE BLINDNESS OF MANY WHO ARE KNOWLEDGEABLE. A. These see the truths they want to see. 1. Luke 12:54-57And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is.And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass.Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right? B. Why? 1. 1 Cor 3:19-21For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; 2. Rom 1:22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, C. They cannot understand the truth because they look to the world. 1. 2 Cor 4:3-4But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Page

D. Consider Pauls warning to Timothy. 1. 1 Tim 6:20-21O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. II. SOME TRUTHS [TRUE SCIENCE] TO CONSIDER. A. The paths of the sea. 1. Ps 8:4-9 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: 7 All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; 8 The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas. 9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! Matthew Fontaine Maury (1806-1873) was once confined to his bed due to an extended illness. His son read to him from the Bible, from Psalm 8 Maury set out to find the paths of the sea. Indeed, he found just that! He was the first [man] to recognize that the seas were circulating systems with interaction between wind and water. His book on physical oceanography is still considered a basic text for studies of this sort. The United States Naval Institute issued a book in 1927 recounting the entire episode, entitled Matthew Fontaine Maury: Pathfinder of the Seas. Maurys home state of Virginia erected a statue in his honor upon his death; encarved in the base of it was Psalm 8:8.[P. 50, ESSAYS IN APOLOGETICS, Vol. 1, Apologetics Press] B. The springs of the sea. 1. Job 38:16a Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? Job was asked by God: Job 38:16a Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? Guess what! There are springs of fresh water that come forth from the floor of the ocean. The Roman geographer, Strabo [63 B. C.-21 A. D.] referred to them. They can be found off the coasts of Italy, Greece, Syria, and Israel. Fresh water can be found off the coast of Australia. The U. S. Geological Survey discovered fresh water in the Atlantic coast from New England to Georgia in 1976. [P. 51, op cit]] C. The channels of the sea. 1. Job 38:16b Or hast thou walked in the search of the depth? 2. 2 Sam 22:16 And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils. Also God asked Job: Job 38:16b Or hast thou walked in the search of the depth? David spoke of the channels of the sea: 2 Sam 22:16 And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.For centuries, science held that the floor of the seas sloped gently and smoothly from shore to shore. The Challenger expedition (1873-1876) discovered a canyon 5.5 miles deep in the sea floor. Many other recesses of the deep have been found since then, one of them near the Philippines over 7 miles deep. [P.51, op cit]

Page

D. The hydrologic cycle. 1. Eccl 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. Solomon wrote: Eccl 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.He described the hydrologic cycle 2000 years before science did. III. CONSIDER THE AGE OF THE EARTH. A. Science of today says that the earth and the solar system are billions of years old. 1. The proof is that billions of years are needed for evolution to have occurred.????? B. The facts, the truth, the Bible, all say otherwise.
The Earth's Magnetic Field Is Young by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. * The earth's magnetic field is a powerful witness for a world much younger than the billions of years required by evolutionary theories. Let's start the story with the most prominent feature of the field today--its very rapid decay. The Field Is Decaying Rapidly The average "intensity" of the earth's magnetic field has decreased exponentially by about 7% since its first careful measurement in 1829.[1] The field's intensity includes components of strength and direction and tells us the amount of force turning a compass needle northward. By estimating the field intensity everywhere (in, on, and above the earth), we can calculate the total electrical "energy" stored in the field. Such calculations show that the total energy in the field has decreased by about 14% since 1829. This rapid decay of both energy and intensity was not widely known, even among scientists, until Dr. Thomas Barnes, a creationist physicist, began publicizing it in 1971.[2] He pointed out that such a decay would occur very naturally if the electrical current producing the field were slowly losing energy because of the electrical resistance of the core.[3] This theory is called "free decay." The observed decay rate is exactly what one would expect from the electrical properties of the materials most likely to be in the core.[4] Evolutionary Theories Haven't Worked The free-decay theory contradicts the evolutionary "dynamo" theories, which claim that complex processes in the earth's core have converted heat energy into electrical energy, much like an electric generator, maintaining the field for billions of years.[5] Many intelligent scientists have been working on dynamo theories for over four decades without great success. Furthermore, recent measurements of electric currents in the sea floor weigh heavily against the most popular class of dynamo theories.[6] Thus evolutionary dynamo theories do not have a good explanation for the rapid decay of the field, whereas the freedecay theory does. However, our historical data on the intensity of the field only goes back to 1829. Was the field decaying before that? Fortunately, there is a scientific way to answer that question. "Archaeomagnetism" is the study of the magnetization of bricks, pottery, campfire stones, and other man-related objects studied by archaeologists. Iron oxides in those objects retain a record of the strength and direction of the earth's magnetic field at the time they last cooled to normal temperatures. Archaeomagnetic data taken worldwide show that the intensity of the earth's magnetic field was about 40% greater in 1000 A.D. than it is today, and that it has declined steadily since then.[7] Such a rapid decay could not have been going on continuously for millions of years, because the field would have to have been impossibly strong in the past in order for it to still exist today. Creationists of the 1970s extrapolated today's decay back into the past, showing that the field could not be more than about 10,000 years old, assuming a constant decay of intensity.

Page

Unfortunately, the archaeomagnetic data do not support that assumption.[7] Instead, the data show that the field intensity at the earth's surface fluctuated wildly up and down during the third millennium before Christ (see figure 1). A final fluctuation slowly increased the intensity until it reached a peak (50% higher than today) at about the time of Christ. Then it began a slowly accelerating decrease. By about 1000 A.D., the decrease was nearly as fast as it is today.

The Field Has Reversed Direction Many Times

"Paleomagnetism" is the study of magnetization locked into rocks at the time of their formation. Paleomagnetic data
show that while the geologic strata were being laid down, the earth's magnetic field reversed its direction hundreds of times. Reversals are a very severe departure from steady decay of intensity. Both archaeomagnetic and paleomagnetic data contradict the early creationist assumption of constant decay of intensity. In 1988 I published a review paper documenting the great diversity and reliability of the data.[8] A Creationist Theory for Reversals and Fluctuations The validity of the data required a new theory to explain them. In 1986 I suggested that strong flows of the fluid in the earth's core could produce rapid reversals of the field during and after the Genesis flood.[9] The resulting disturbances in the core would cause the field intensity at the earth's surface to fluctuate up and down for thousands of years afterwards. This "dynamic-decay" theory is a more general version of the free-decay theory, since it takes account of motions in the core fluid. Dynamic decay explains the main features of the data, especially several features evolutionists find puzzling. In 1988, startling new evidence was found for the most essential prediction of my theory--very rapid reversals;[10] and in 1990, I showed a specific physical mechanism for such reversals.[11] The Field's "Energy" Has Always Decreased According to the dynamic-decay theory, the "energy" in the field has always decreased rapidly. In fact, the energy loss during reversals and fluctuations would have been even faster than today's rate. This information allows us to estimate the age of the field.

Page

The data and the dynamic-decay theory imply that, ever since creation, the field has always lost at least half its energy every 700 years. Figure 2 illustrates the factors involved. The maximum energy in the figure comes from another theory I proposed about the nature of the field when God created the earth, a theory which successfully predicted space probe measurements of planetary magnetic fields.[12] Extrapolating today's energy decay rate back (along the dotted straight line labeled "free decay") to that limit yields a maximum age of 8700 years. According to the dynamic-decay theory, the true age would be less than that because of extra losses during the reversals and fluctuations. The solid line (labeled "dynamic decay") shows that with a significant loss of energy during the Genesis flood, the age of the field would be about 6000 years.

*******Are

There Any Loopholes in the Logic?*******

The precise age limits above depend not only on the dynamic decay theory, but also on the theory of planetary magnetic-field origins. However, we can still set a rough maximum to the initial energy from basic physical considerations, as Dr. Barnes has done.[2] Such a maximum would limit the age to roughly 10,000 years. It is also possible that a small percentage of today's energy decay is not free decay, due to the core's electrical resistance; but rather is dynamic decay, due to residual motions in the core fluid. In that case, the resistance of the core would be less, and the maximum age of the field would be greater. But even in this extreme case, the maximum age would still be only about 100,000 years, far short of the billions of years evolution needs.

Conclusion At present, the only working theory for the origin, fluctuations, rapid reversals, and decay of the field is a creationist theory--a theory that fits all the data. Thus, according to the best theory and data we have, the earth's magnetic field certainly is less than 100,000 years old; very likely less than 10,000 years old, and fits in well with the facevalue Biblical age of 6,000 years.
Page
References

1. McDonald, K. L. and R. H. Gunst. "An analysis of the earth's magnetic field from 1835 to 1965," ESSA Technical Report IER 46-IES 1 (July 1967) U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., Table 3, p. 14. 2. Barnes, T. G. "Decay of the earth's magnetic moment and the geochronological implications," Creation Research Society Quarterly 8 (June 1971) 24-29. 3. Barnes, T. G. "Electromagnetics of the earth's field and evaluation of electric conductivity, current, and Joule heating of the earth's core," Creation Research Society Quarterly 9 (March 1973) 222-230. Decay rate implies conductivity of 40,000 mho/m. 4. Stacey, F. D. "Electrical resistivity of the earth's core," Earth and Planetary Science Letters 3 (1967) 204-206. Likely core materials imply conductivity of roughly 33,000 mho/m, agreeing with Ref. 3. 5. Inglis, D. R. "Dynamo theory of the earth's varying magnetic field," Reviews of Modern Physics 53 (July 1981) 481-496. 6. Lanzerotti, L. J., et al. "Measurements of the large-scale direct-current earth potential and possible implications for the geomagnetic dynamo," Science 229 (5 July 1986) 47-49. 7. Merrill, R. T. and M. W. McElhinney. The Earth's Magnetic Field (London: Academic Press, 1983) 101-106. 8. Humphreys, D. R. "Has the earth's magnetic field ever flipped?" Creation Research Society Quarterly 25 (December 1988) 89-94. 9. Humphreys, D. R. "Reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the Genesis flood," Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 362 Ashland Avenue, 1986) 113-126. 10. Coe, R. S. and M. Prevot. "Evidence suggesting extremely rapid field variation during a geomagnetic reversal," Earth and Planetary Science Letters 93 (April 1989) 292-298. 11. Humphreys, D. R. "Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the flood," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 362 Ashland Avenue, 1990) 129-142. 12. Humphreys, D. R. "The creation of planetary magnetic fields," Creation Research Society Quarterly 21 (December 1984) 140-149, records the predictions. Humphreys, D.R. "Good news from Neptune: The Voyager II magnetic measurements," Creation Research Society Quarterly 27 (June 1990) 15-17, reports the confirmation of the predictions. See also Humphreys, D. R. "Beyond Neptune: Voyager II supports creation," ICR Impact No. 203 (May 1990).

* At time of publication, Dr. Humphreys was an ICR Adjunct Professor of Physics and a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquergue, New Mexico. The Laboratories have
not supported this work. Cite this article: Humphreys, D. R. 1993. The Earths Magnetic Field Is Young. Acts & Facts. 22 (8).

C. Earthspopulation. 1. Science fails us. If we used the standard population growth rate and applied it to the approximate length of time evolutionists theorize that humans have lived here, that calculated population would be . BUT all known space according to science could only hold . That means there are people left over. Contrariwise, if we use the population growth rate beginning around 2500 B. C. (circa the Flood), we arrive at a figure of 4.5 to 5 billion. [Population statistics at the time of the release of this article indicate a population of 5.5 billion.][P. 59, The Other Side of Evolution] D. Shrinkage of the sun. 1. Quite logically, the sun is slowly being consumed. The decrease in the size of the sun has been calculated. Just 100,000 years ago, the sun would have been twice the diameter that it is now. If that had ever been the situation, the earth would have burned up. 20 million years ago, the diameter of the sun would have merged with the orbit of the earth. Taking this not even near to the extreme to which evolutionists insist upon, 500 million years ago, the entire solar system from Venus to Pluto (recently demoted from being a planet) would have been inside the sun. That is not the end of the preposterous, for evolutionists demand that the sun is many billions of years old. Apparently, the idea [not theory] of evolution fails when examined by science. E. Hydrogen in the universe.

Page

1. One measureable observation of science is that the quantity of hydrogen in the universe is constantly and speedily shrinking. [p 59, op cit] 2. Amount of hydrogen. *Fred Hoyle explains that if the universe was not created, it would be very ancient, but the amount of fresh hydrogen in it reveals it to have had a beginningand not long ago. If the universe were old there would be much helium and little hydrogen, but just the opposite is true.

"To avoid the issue of creation, it would be necessary for all the material of the Universe to be infinitely old, and this it cannot be for a very practical reason. For if this were so, there could be no hydrogen left in the Universe. As I think I demonstrated when I talked about the insides of the stars, hydrogen is being steadily converted into helium throughout the Universe and this conversion is a one-way processthat is to say, hydrogen cannot be produced in any appreciable quantity through the breakdown of the other elements. How come it is then that the Universe consists almost entirely of hydrogen?If matter were infinitely old, this would be quite impossible."*Fred Hoyle, The Nature of the Universe (1950), p. 125.
F.Moondust. 1. The gravitational pull of the earth and the moon constantly pulls cosmic dust down upon the surfaces. The earths atmosphere, with its winds and rains, keeps this dust from settling evenly. However, that dust upon the moon does not have these forces to contend with. Therefore, it settles directly, resulting in a measureable buildup. NASA scientists and engineers projected a depth of 50-70 feet so they designed the first lunar landing modules with big pods to keep the module from sinking. To their surprise and to the surprise of the evolutionists, the dust was actually about 1 inch deep! And the evolutionists agree that the earth and the moon are the same age millions or even billions of years younger than they supposed.[P 60, op cit]

CONCLUSION: Eccl 12:12-14 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Page