Russell Humphreys and the creationist cosmological model

My girlfriend's dad, who is a young earth creationist, mentioned today Russell Humphreys and the creationist cosmological model. I was a little skeptical initially, but I gave it a chance because it sounded reputable.He mentioned that Humphreys made predictions about the magnetic field strengths of Uranus and Neptune, and turned out to be 100,000 times more accurate than dynamo theorists. I found that this was true, and I'm dumbfounded. Any explanation, or is this legitimate? If it is legitimate, what implications does it have?The Institute for Creation Researchhttp://creationontheweb.com/content/view/760/#1r3
(see "Observational support from the fields of other planets" under "Origin of the Earth's magnetic field")Also, he mentioned something about Russell's white hole cosmology and parts of his young earth cosmological model that were "borrowed" by Big bang theorists to solve the horizon problem (I think its called inflationary theory). In other words, Big Bang theorists stole ideas from Humphrey's model?Lastly, he implied that the Big Bang is false, and that it was a struggling cosmological theory. Is this true? Are the problems within the Big bang model too egregious to overcome? Is it still a solid theory?Please don't flame me, I'm not advocating any of Russell's work. I'm simply curious at looking at both sides of the argument. Please help clear things up for me, because all of this has made me uneasy about the stability of the Big bang model and the age of the universe. Thanks.

Welcome aboard Buckets.There are a couple of things I'd like to see cleaned up with this OP.One thing we find useful is to keep a topic rather narrowly focussed. If it isn't the discussion goes all over the place.You've got at least three topics in here. Perhaps you should just pick the magnetic field strength issue first?The other thing is we have a rule about "debating websites". For that reason I'll like o see more of how Humphreys made these predictions.I understand it isn't your argument but we should hold you to bring some of the material here in your own words because that is the rule. Additionally, what you bring will become the focus of the discussion.While you're doing that I'm trying a search to find where this has all be discussed here before. It has of course, everything has been.

Message 4This post might sum it up. I didn't look close enough to be sure.

This is a complicated one, because not only are there multiple specific topics, he also poses a more general question about how much legitimacy to give creationist claims.We've had so much recent discussion about the Big Bang that it might be premature to begin yet another thread on this topic. Buckets might want to check out these threads:

• What is "the fabric" of space-time?
  
• Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?
  
• The Big Bang and Absolute Zero
  
• Did the expansion rate of the universe exceed lightspeed?
  
• Universe Race (now closed)

I agree with your initial assessment that Buckets should probably start small with the Humphreys' magnetic field prediction, even in light of Joe Meert's message from 2002, because it would be very interesting to see something more specific about Humphreys' predictions. I think Joe was in essence saying that Humphreys' predictions had the same specificity as Nostradamus prophecies, and it would be only proper to actually determine if that was the case.Edited by Admin, : Fix the links.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director