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 Research
http://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.