Search This Blog

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Now Back To The Flood Of Noah - Refuting Noah's Ark Critics and presenting corroborating evidence!

The following article is an overview of common questions that can easily be answered and supposed problems for the Ark that are not problems.   Jonathan Sarfati takes on pretty much every common question asked or statement made by Darwinists or seekers of truth and gives a good answer.  He refers people to relevant articles to support his statements.   This article is absolutely vital for anyone who wishes to understand how the Ark could have been capable of preserving the lives of all aboard.  A number of corollary questions are also thoroughly discussed that relate to the Ark and the Flood.  

Following Dr. Sarfati's thoughtful answers to critics, there is a second article about dinosaur fossils in the Morrison Formation and why the evidence points to the Noahic Flood.  

At the end is a third article that is rather technical in nature that soundly answers any critic who claims that the Ark was not capable of withstanding the unusual conditions of the worldwide flood.  
The Ark was quite seaworthy and was in fact quite optimal for the job at hand...surviving with a large cargo on a stormy sea for many months. 

Refuting Noah’s ark critics
Jonathan Sarfati
The article How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark? was only Dr Jonathan Sarfati’s second article for Creation magazine, published in 1997. But only in the last year, it has received a barrage of criticism from biblioskeptics. The article was probably linked on some atheopathic site inhabiting some of the darker corners of the Internet. We thought that Dr Sarfati’s refutations of these critics would be instructive for a weekend feedback article. They show that the biblical account can withstand the strongest attacks even better than the Ark could withstand the Flood waters (which is saying a lot).
Joe M., United States, 8 July 2012
The sheer silliness of this is mind boggling. There hasn’t been enough time for all species to evolve in 4 billion years, BUT … Horses,Zebras and Donkeys, which are estimated to be millions of years apart by science, evolved in 5000 years? Huh?
A guy had 8000 pairs of animals on an Ark? Can’t this be a story? Catholics treat all of these things as stories without anyone running off to become an atheist. I just will never get this.

There's more where that came from! To read these and the responses, go to "Refuting Noah's Ark Critics".

The second article is an overview of dinosaur fossils found in the Morrison Formation and why these finds support the Noahic Flood.

Evidence for the Flood at Dinosaur National Monument, USA

The dinosaur bones are concentrated in an extensive lens-shaped bed of rock and are an outstanding example of a ‘mass burial’ deposit.1,2 Dinosaur National Monument has been called “the greatest dinosaur quarry ever discovered”, and is the most fertile source of dinosaur fossils in North America.3 For decades, visitors to this spectacular site were told that the fossils represent generations of dinosaurs that lived and died within a peaceful swamp environment some 150 million years ago.4 But geologists now realise that the remains did not accumulate that way. So how did the bones get there, and what do they tell us?At Dinosaur National Monument in Utah, a confused tangle of bones juts from a ridge of sandstone, chock-full of dinosaur fossils. The sandstone is part of the Morrison Formation, a body of sedimentary rock extending from New Mexico to Saskatchewan in the north and covering more than 1 million square kilometres (400,000 square miles) of the western US and Canada. Eleven different species of dinosaur have been dug from the quarry at Dinosaur National Monument, including one of the largest and most complete skeletons of a giant Apatosaurus ever found.

To read the rest, click on "Dinosaur Disarray".

There are also marine fossils found in the Morrison Formation FYI. 

So what did Noah use to repair leaks?  An Ark welder!    Lots of people have enjoyed making cartoons and jokes associated with the Noahic Flood.  Just so you know that the actual event was no joke?  There was a global flood and Noah's Ark preserved birds, land-dwelling vertebrates and especially people.  

This third article is quite technical and you can ignore the math if that is not your "thing" but, hopefully, you will appreciate the point that is made - the Ark was indeed optimal for the job at hand and would be considered a great design today for a vessel designed to stay afloat in heavy storms with a cargo. The Ark was not intended to cross an ocean and arrive at a port, it was designed to keep the inhabitants alive and well until it had run aground upon the new, emerging surface of the land "...on the mountains of Ararat."


Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway

In this study, the safety of Noah’s Ark in the severe environments imposed by waves and winds during the Genesis Flood was investigated. Three major safety parameters—structural safety, overturning stability, and seakeeping quality—were evaluated altogether to assess the safety of the whole system.
The concept of ‘relative safety’, which is defined as the relative superiority in safety compared to other hull forms, was introduced and 12 different hull forms with the same displacement were generated for this purpose. Evaluation of these three safety parameters was performed using analytical tools. Model tests using 1/50 scaled models of a prototype were performed for three typical hull forms in order to validate the theoretical analysis.
Total safety index, defined as the weighted average of three relative safety performances, showed that the Ark had a superior level of safety in high winds and waves compared with the other hull forms studied. The voyage limit of the Ark, estimated on the basis of modern passenger ships, criteria, revealed that it could have navigated through waves higher than 30 metres.
There has been continuing debate over the occurrence of the Genesis Flood and the existence of Noah’s Ark in human history. Even though many scientific researches on the occurrence of the Flood itself have been made by geologists and anthropologists, limited information is known about Noah’s Ark, and conclusive physical evidence about the remains of the Ark has not been discovered, despite many searches this century of sites such as the Ice Cave and Anderson sites. While little is known about the hull form and the structure of the Ark, the size and the material of the Ark given in the Bible themselves are enough to warrant the attention of naval architects and so enable investigations of the practicality of the Ark as a drifting ship in high winds and waves.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway".

If you made it this far, congratulations!!! There is MUCH more evidence supporting the reliability dimensions of the Ark, both for seaworthiness and also being capable of carrying all the needed birds and land-dwelling vertebrates that God brought to Noah. But then, since the Ark was designed by God, of course it would be perfect for the job! 

The Bible does compare the Ark as the salvation of Noah's family and the animals with them and Jesus Christ, the Messiah Who offers you safe passage from this world to the next.   To trust Jesus as your Lord and Savior makes you a child of God, with a relationship with the Creator now and an eternal future of peace and joy that is everlasting.  Jesus Christ is the way, He is the door to knowing truth and being changed from the inside out.   I need God to forgive me every day but I also know that He knows every thought and deed.   He cleanses me and forgives me and I keep looking ahead seeking to take each step in the right direction.  I am not even close to perfect, but I am forgiven and loved.

  Thank you, Lord, for being patient with me!!!

Friday, September 13, 2013

Dealing with Carbon14 dating and the real results AND the rapid flow of magma confirms the Flood story.

Carbon-14 Dating—Understanding the Basics

By Andrew Snelling - September 14, 2010

Many people assume that rocks are dated at “millions of years” based on radiocarbon (carbon-14) dating. But that’s not the case. The reason is simple. Carbon-14 can yield dates of only “thousands of years” before it all breaks down.
The most well-known of all the radiometric dating methods is radiocarbon dating. Although many people think radiocarbon dating is used to date rocks, it is limited to dating things that contain the element carbon and were once alive (like fossils).

(Radar note:  Parts two and three are linked for you but not included in this can easily read the rest of the story from Snelling's part two and three)

How Radiocarbon Forms

Unlike radiocarbon (14C), the other radioactive elements used to date rocks—uranium (238U), potassium (40K), and rubidium (87Rb)—are not being formed on earth, as far as we know. Thus it appears that God probably created those elements when He made the original earth.
In contrast, radiocarbon forms continually today in the earth’s upper atmosphere. And as far as we know, it has been forming in the earth’s upper atmosphere since the atmosphere was made back on Day Two of Creation Week (part of the expanse, or firmament, described in Genesis 1:6–8).
So how does radiocarbon form? Cosmic rays from outer space are continually bombarding the upper atmosphere of the earth, producing fast-moving neutrons (subatomic particles carrying no electric charge) (Figure 1a).1 These fast-moving neutrons collide with atoms of nitrogen-14, the most abundant element in the upper atmosphere, converting them into radiocarbon (carbon-14) atoms.
Carbon-14 Cycle
CARBON-14 IS CREATED (Figure 1a): When cosmic rays bombard the earth’s atmosphere, they produce neutrons. These excited neutrons then collide with nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere, changing them into radioactive carbon-14 atoms.

CARBON-14 IS ABSORBED (Figure 1b): Plants absorb this carbon-14 during photosynthesis. When animals eat the plants, the carbon-14 enters their bodies. The carbon-14 in their bodies breaks down to nitrogen-14 and escapes at the same rate as new carbon-14 is added. So the level of carbon-14 remains stable.

CARBON-14 IS DEPLETED (Figure 1c): When an animal dies the carbon-14 continues to break down to nitrogen-14 and escapes, while no new carbon-14 is added. By comparing the surviving amount of carbon-14 to the original amount, scientists can calculate how long ago the animal died.

Since the atmosphere is composed of about 78% nitrogen,2 a lot of radiocarbon atoms are produced—in total about 16.5 pounds (7.5 kg) per year. These rapidly combine with oxygen atoms (the second most abundant element in the atmosphere, at 21%) to form carbon dioxide (CO2).
This carbon dioxide, now radioactive with carbon-14, is otherwise chemically indistinguishable from the normal carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is slightly lighter because it contains normal carbon-12. Radioactive and non-radioactive carbon dioxide mix throughout the atmosphere, and dissolve into the oceans.
Through photosynthesis carbon dioxide enters plants and algae, bringing radiocarbon into the food chain. Radiocarbon then enters animals as they consume the plants (Figure 1b). So even we humans are radioactive because of trace amounts of radiocarbon in our bodies.

Determining the Rate of Radiocarbon Decay

After radiocarbon forms, the nuclei of the carbon-14 atoms are unstable, so over time they progressively decay back to nuclei of stable nitrogen-14.3 A neutron breaks down to a proton and an electron, and the electron is ejected. This process is called beta decay. The ejected electrons are called beta particles and make up what is called beta radiation.
Because it breaks down quickly, carbon-14 is useful for dating creatures that died in the past few thousand years, not millions of years ago.
Not all radiocarbon atoms decay at the same time. Different carbon-14 atoms revert to nitrogen-14 at different times, which explains why radiocarbon decay is considered a random process.
To measure the rate of decay, a suitable detector records the number of beta particles ejected from a measured quantity of carbon over a period of time, say a month (for illustration purposes). Since each beta particle represents one decayed carbon-14 atom, we know how many carbon-14 atoms decay during a month.
Chemists have already determined how many atoms are in a given mass of each element, such as carbon.4 So if we weigh a lump of carbon, we can calculate how many carbon atoms are in it.
If we know what fraction of the carbon atoms are radioactive, we can also calculate how many radiocarbon atoms are in the lump. Knowing the number of atoms that decayed in our sample over a month, we can calculate the radiocarbon decay rate.
The standard way of expressing the decay rate is called the half-life.5 It’s defined as the time it takes half a given quantity of a radioactive element to decay. So if we started with 2 million atoms of carbon-14 in our measured quantity of carbon, then the half-life of radiocarbon would be the time it takes for half, or 1 million, of those atoms to decay. The radiocarbon half-life or decay rate has been determined at 5,730 years.

Using Radiocarbon for Dating

Next comes the question of how scientists use this knowledge to date things. If carbon-14 has formed at a constant rate for a very long time and continually mixed into the biosphere, then the level of carbon-14 in the atmosphere should remain constant.
If the level is constant, living plants and animals should also maintain a constant carbon-14 level in them. The reason is that, as long as the organism is alive, it replaces any carbon molecule that has decayed into nitrogen.
After plants and animals perish, however, they no longer replace molecules damaged by radiocarbon decay. Instead, the radiocarbon atoms in their bodies slowly decay away, so the ratio of carbon-14 atoms to regular carbon atoms will steadily decrease over time (Figure 1c).
Let’s suppose we find a mammoth’s skull and we want to date it to determine how long ago it lived. We can measure in the laboratory how many carbon-14 atoms are still in the skull. If we assume that the mammoth originally had the same number of carbon- 14 atoms in its bones as living animals do today (estimated at one carbon-14 atom for every trillion carbon-12 atoms), then, because we also know the radiocarbon decay rate, we can calculate how long ago the mammoth died. It’s really quite simple.
This dating method is similar to the principle behind an hourglass.6 The sand grains that originally filled the top bowl represent the carbon-14 atoms in the living mammoth just before it died. It’s assumed to be the same number of carbon-14 atoms as in elephants living today. With time those sand grains fall to the bottom bowl, so the new number represents the carbon-14 atoms left in the mammoth skull when we found it.
The difference in the number of sand grains represents the number of carbon-14 atoms that have decayed back to nitrogen-14 since the mammoth died. Because we have measured the rate at which the sand grains fall (the radiocarbon decay rate), we can then calculate how long it took those carbon-14 atoms to decay, which is how long ago the mammoth died.
That’s how the radiocarbon method works. And because the half-life of carbon-14 is just 5,730 years, radiocarbon dating of materials containing carbon yields dates of only thousands of years, not the dates over millions of years that conflict with the framework of earth history provided by the Bible, God’s eyewitness account of history.
Dr. Andrew Snelling holds a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney and has worked as a consultant research geologist to organizations in both Australia and America. Author of numerous scientific articles, Dr. Snelling is now director of research at Answers in Genesis–USA.


  1. S. Bowman, Interpreting the Past: Radiocarbon Dating (London: British Museum Publications, 1990). Back
  2. S. S. Zumdahl, Chemical Principles, 2nd edition (Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company, 1995), p.171. Back
  3. A. Dickin, Radiogenic Isotope Geology, 2nd edition (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 383–398. Back
  4. Ref. 2, p. 55, 1995. For radiocarbon this number is ~6.022 x 1023atoms per 14 grams of carbon-14. Back
  5. G. Faure and T. M. Mensing, Isotopes: Principles and Applications, 3rd edition (Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2005), pp. 614–625. Back
  6. A. A. Snelling, “Radiometric Dating: Back to Basics,” Answers 4.3 (2009): 72–75. Back
Dr. Snelling's three part series is a thorough treatment of the concept of REAL carbon-14 dating. This is part of the evidence Darwinists do not want you to know!  Dr. Snelling is part of the RATE team that has made discoveries that have helped nail down the actual age of the Earth.  A summary of findings of RATE teams follows the next article.

Background below on the carbon dating issue from one of the world's finest experts on the tectonic plates of the Earth as well as another RATE team member, Dr. John Baumgardner:

Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages

Evolutionists generally feel secure even in the face of compelling creationist arguments today because of their utter confidence in the geological time scale. Even if they cannot provide a naturalistic mechanism, they appeal to the "fact of evolution," by which they mean an interpretation of earth history with a succession of different types of plants and animals in a drama spanning hundreds of millions of years.
The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet's history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. This Biblical interpretation of the rock record implies that the animals and plants preserved as fossils were all contemporaries. This means trilobites, dinosaurs, and mammals all dwelled on the planet simultaneously, and they perished together in this world-destroying cataclysm.
Although creationists have long pointed out the rock formations themselves testify unmistakably to water catastrophism on a global scale, evolutionists generally have ignored this testimony. This is partly due to the legacy of the doctrine of uniformitarianism passed down from one generation of geologists to the next since the time of Charles Lyell in the early nineteenth century. Uniformitarianism assumes that the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time, as opposed to a global cataclysm of the type described in the Bible and other ancient texts.
With the discovery of radioactivity about a hundred years ago, evolutionists deeply committed to the uniformitarian outlook believed they finally had proof of the immense antiquity of the earth. In particular, they discovered the very slow nuclear decay rates of elements like Uranium while observing considerable amounts of the daughter products from such decay. They interpreted these discoveries as vindicating both uniformitarianism and evolution, which led to the domination of these beliefs in academic circles around the world throughout the twentieth century.
However, modern technology has produced a major fly in that uniformitarian ointment. A key technical advance, which occurred about 25 years ago, involved the ability to measure the ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms with extreme precision in very small samples of carbon, using an ion beam accelerator and a mass spectrometer. Prior to the advent of this accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) method, the 14C/12C ratio was measured by counting the number of 14C decays. This earlier method was subject to considerable "noise" from cosmic rays.
The AMS method improved the sensitivity of the raw measurement of the 14C/12C ratio from approximately 1% of the modern value to about 0.001%, extending the theoretical range of sensitivity from about 40,000 years to about 90,000 years. The expectation was that this improvement in precision would make it possible to use this technique to date dramatically older fossil material.1 The big surprise, however, was that no fossil material could be found anywhere that had as little as 0.001% of the modern value!2 Since most of the scientists involved assumed the standard geological time scale was correct, the obvious explanation for the 14C they were detecting in their samples was contamination from some source of modern carbon with its high level of14C. Therefore they mounted a major campaign to discover and eliminate the sources of such contamination. Although they identified and corrected a few relatively minor sources of 14C contamination, there still remained a significant level of 14C—typically about 100 times the ultimate sensitivity of the instrument—in samples that should have been utterly "14C-dead," including many from the deeper levels of the fossil-bearing part of the geological record.2
Let us consider what the AMS measurements imply from a quantitative standpoint. The ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms decreases by a factor of 2 every 5730 years. After 20 half-lives or 114,700 years (assuming hypothetically that earth history goes back that far), the 14C/12C ratio is decreased by a factor of 220, or about 1,000,000. After 1.5 million years, the ratio is diminished by a factor of 21500000/5730, or about 1079. This means that if one started with an amount of pure 14C equal to the mass of the entire observable universe, after 1.5 million years there should not be a single atom of 14C remaining! Routinely finding 14C/12C ratios on the order of 0.1-0.5% of the modern value—a hundred times or more above the AMS detection threshold—in samples supposedly tens to hundreds of millions of years old is therefore a huge anomaly for the uniformitarian framework.
This earnest effort to understand this "contamination problem" therefore generated scores of peer-reviewed papers in the standard radiocarbon literature during the last 20 years.2 Most of these papers acknowledge that most of the 14C in the samples studied appear to be intrinsic to the samples themselves, and they usually offer no explanation for its origin. The reality of significant levels of 14C in a wide variety of fossil sources from throughout the geological record has thus been established in the secular scientific literature by scientists who assume the standard geological time scale is valid and have no special desire for this result!
In view of the profound significance of these AMS 14C measurements, the ICR Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) team has undertaken its own AMS 14C analyses of such fossil material.2 The first set of samples consisted of ten coals obtained from the U. S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank maintained at the Pennsylvania State University. The ten samples include three coals from the Eocene part of the geological record, three from the Cretaceous, and four from the Pennsylvanian. These samples were analyzed by one of the foremost AMS laboratories in the world. Figure 1 below shows in histogram form the results of these analyses.
These values fall squarely within the range already established in the peer-reviewed radiocarbon literature. When we average our results over each geological interval, we obtain remarkably similar values of 0.26 percent modern carbon (pmc) for Eocene, 0.21 pmc for Cretaceous, and 0.27 pmc for Pennsylvanian. Although the number of samples is small, we observe little difference in 14C level as a function of position in the geological record. This is consistent with the young-earth view that the entire macrofossil record up to the upper Cenozoic is the product of the Genesis Flood and therefore such fossils should share a common 14C age.
Figure 1. Histogram representation of 14C analysis of RATE coal samples.  Coal 14C AMS Results  Mean: 0.247   Std dev: 0.109
Percent Modern Carbon
Applying the uniformitarian approach of extrapolating 14C decay into the indefinite past translates the measured 14C/12C ratios into ages that are on the order of 50,000 years (2-50000/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc). However, uniformitarian assumptions are inappropriate when one considers that the Genesis Flood removed vast amounts of living biomass from exchange with the atmosphere—organic material that now forms the earth's vast coal, oil, and oil shale deposits. A conservative estimate for the pre-Flood biomass is 100 times that of today. If one takes as a rough estimate for the total14C in the biosphere before the cataclysm as 40% of what exists today and assumes a relatively uniform 14C level throughout the pre-Flood atmosphere and biomass, then we might expect a 14C/12C ratio of about 0.4% of today's value in the plants and animals at the onset of the Flood. With this more realistic pre-Flood 14C/12C ratio, we find that a value of 0.24 pmc corresponds to an age of only 4200 years (0.004 x 2-4200/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc). Even though these estimates are rough, they illustrate the crucial importance of accounting for effects of the Flood cataclysm when translating a 14C/12C ratio into an actual age.

Percent Modern Carbon

Some readers at this point may be asking, how does one then account for the tens of millions and hundreds of millions of years that other radioisotope methods yield for the fossil record? Most of the other RATE projects address this important issue. Equally as persuasive as the 14C data is evidence from RATE measurements of the diffusion rate of Helium in zircon crystals that demonstrates the rate of nuclear decay of Uranium into Lead and Helium has been dramatically higher in the past and the uniformitarian assumption of a constant rate of decay is wrong.3 Another RATE project documents the existence of abundant Polonium radiohalos in granitic rocks that crystallized during the Flood and further demonstrates that the uniformitarian assumption of constant decay rates is incorrect.4 Another RATE project provides clues for why the 14C decay rate apparently was minimally affected during episodes of rapid decay of isotopes with long half-lives.5
The bottom line of this research is that the case is now extremely compelling that the fossil record was produced just a few thousand years ago by the global Flood cataclysm. The evidence reveals that macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of life on earth can therefore no longer be rationally defended.
Acknowledgement: The RATE team would like to express its heartfelt gratitude to the many generous donors who have made the high precision analyses at some of the best laboratories in the world possible. The credibility of our work in creation science research depends on these costly but crucial laboratory procedures.

Endnotes and References

  1. F. H. Schmidt, D. R. Balsley, and D. D. Leach, "Early expectations of AMS: Greater ages and tiny fractions. One failure?—one success," Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, 29:97-99, 1987.
  2. J. R. Baumgardner, D. R. Humphreys, A. A. Snelling, and S. A. Austin, "Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: Confirming the young earth creation/Flood model," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. E. Walsh, Editor, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 127-142, 2003.
  3. D. R. Humphreys, J. R. Baumgardner, S. A. Austin, and A. A., Snelling, "Helium diffusion rates support accelerated nuclear decay," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 175-196, 2003.
  4. A. A. Snelling and M. H. Armitage, "Radiohalos—A tale of three granitic plutons," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 243-268, 2003.
  5. A. A. Snelling, S. A. Austin, and W. A. Hoesch, "Radioisotopes in the diabase sill (upper Precambrian) at Bass Rapids, Grand Canyon, Arizona: An application and test of the isochron dating method," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 269-284, 2003.
* At the time of publication, Dr. Baumgardner was Adjunct Associate Professor of Geophysics for the ICRGS.
Cite this article: Baumgardner, J. 2003. Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages. Acts & Facts. 32 (10).
Wait a minute!   What is the RATE team and what have they done?  Glad you asked!

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE)


Scientists associated with the Institute for Creation Research have finished an eight-year research project known as RATE, or Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth.
For over a hundred years, evolutionists have insisted that the earth is billions of years old, and have arrogantly dismissed any views contrary to this belief. However, the team of seven creation scientists have discovered incredible physical evidence that supports what the Bible says about the young age of the earth.
Learn about their discoveries and explore the scientific evidence that supports biblical truth here!

RATE Articles

New Rate Data Support a Young World (#366)by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
Evidence for a Young World (#384) by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

RATE Audio

RATE - What Earthly Reason? Download MP3
RATE - Rocks Evolution, Part 1 Download MP3
RATE - Rocks Evolution, Part 2 Download MP3
RATE - Diamonds: A Creationist's Best Friend Download MP3
RATE - Thousands, Not Billions Download MP3

RATE Resources

Thousands... Not Billions

Understand the findings of the RATE project. Dr. DeYoung authored this non-technical book in order to equip the layperson to defend scientific six-day creation and refute modern dating techniques.
More Information
Thousands... Not Billions - DVD

As a companion to the non-technical book, or by itself, Thousands...Not Billions is the ultimate multimedia resource for any family, student or teacher's library. Evolution and modern science has questioned the Biblical account of Creation for years, and now compelling new scientific research by ICR challenges modern science and their dating techniques.
More Information
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume I

The RATE book is a definitive resource on radioactive dating for every scientist's library, whether evolutionist or creationist. It examines radioisotope theory, exposes its plaguing problems, and offers a better alternative.
More Information
Free downloadFree download [2.8MB PDF]
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II

The age of the earth is an important issue in Christianity today. If the 6 day Genesis account is fallacious, then how can the rest of Scripture be relied upon? Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative addresses the issues raised by the first RATE technical book in 2000.
More Information
Free Download

Finally, for dessert, the study of the movements of magma support the formation of large magma flows within the Biblical time frame for the age of the Earth!

Express-Lane Magma Indicates Young Earth

Magma can really make tracks according to a recent study published in Nature that has significantly upped the perceived speed limit of magma movement in the earth.1 Philipp Ruprecht and Terry Plank examined rocks generated from the most recent, 1963–1965 eruption of the IrazĂș volcano in Costa Rica and found indications that the magma traveled at 150–300 feet per day and possibly as fast as several thousand feet per day. These findings present problems for old-earth theories that are based on sluggish magma movement.
Key factors in the study were the olivine crystals found in the rocks generated during this latest eruption. These crystals preserved the chemical signature of the mantle below the crust from as deep as 22 miles below the surface. Lack of chemical mixing within the magma below the volcano indicates that ascent times were extremely short, with travel from the top of the mantle to the surface taking only a matter of months.
Magmas ascend through the earth because the liquid is more buoyant than the surrounding rocks, somewhat like a hot air balloon traveling upward through the cooler air. However, for many decades, most uniformitarian scientists advocated slow-moving, slow-cooling magmas that inched their way to the surface over thousands or even millions of years.2 The present study smashes this ingrained myth, replacing it with evidence of a more rapid, "catastrophic" magma ascent.
Creation scientists advocate this theory of rapid ascent and cooling of magmas.2,3Granites in the Front Range of Colorado and in the mountains of British Columbia, Canada, had telling ascent rates between 0.5 and 9.0 miles per year.2 However, these magmas originated in the crust at depths only 13 miles down. The Nature study reveals a rapid ascent from depths as far down as the top of the mantle—well beyond 20 miles deep!1
Secular scientists argue that the Sierra Nevada batholith in California, a large magma chamber many miles across, formed by slow magma movements, bit by bit, over a 40-million-year time span. However, based on this newer ascension-rate data, even extensive granitic batholiths, like the Sierra Nevadas, could have formed in just over 1,000 years.2
Studies showing the brisk rise of magma during volcanic eruptions are now becoming more common, and scientists are even considering such movement "catastrophic."4Nature authors Ruprecht and Plank conclude, "This is not an isolated occurrence; magma mixing, mafic magma recharge, and high Fo [fosterite] olivines are common to many stratovolcanoes above subduction zones [i.e., the Cascade Range in Washington and Oregon], and the approach we have outlined here may be applied generally."1
Evidence supporting rapid and catastrophic movement of magma fits the young-earth model, proving that millions and billions of years are not necessary to form the geologic features we see today. The reality is that volcanoes and magmas can form and move rapidly, a fact that confirms the youthful age of the earth spelled out in the book of Genesis.
  1. Ruprecht, P. and T. Plank. 2013. Feeding andesitic eruptions with a high-speed connection from the mantle. Nature. 500 (7460): 68-72.
  2. Snelling, A. 2009. Earth's Catastrophic Past, Volume 2. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 987-993.
  3. Woodmorappe, J. 2001. The rapid formation of granitic rocks: more evidenceJournal of Creation. 15 (2): 122-125.
  4. Petford, N. et al. 2000. Granite magma formation, transport and emplacement in the earth's crust. Nature. 408 (6813): 669-673.
Image credit: Tim Clarey
* Dr. Clarey is a Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in Geology from Western Michigan University.
Article posted on September 13, 2013.

Never again let it be said that Carbon-14 dating supports long ages and Darwinist mythology!

Reviewing The Age of the Universe Part Two

When the evidence is what you care about, you abandon long ages and realize that God actually must have created the Universe and all things and all life as well.  But do you really care about the evidence or are you satisfied being spoon-fed lies and mythology instead?  You see, there are so many new discoveries being made that have begun to pile up the evidence against long ages.  When we measure various processes to try to come up with an age of the Universe it is pretty obvious that we cannot hop in a time machine and travel back until we come to the beginning.  Yesterday's post was in fact part one of this Jason Lisle online treatise. 

Creationists believe that God is real and has told us approximately how old the Universe is via the Bible.  While we cannot be sure of the exact age due to some possible places age could be added, as sometimes a grandfather would be credited as a father if the son in between was not a notable person.  We figure somewhere between 6,000 and 7,000 years old is about right.  The Hebrew scholar who was featured in this earlier post thinks he can be relatively precise.   Darwinists will say something between 13.7 and 15 billion years.   But in fact both can be right, depending on your point of view.  Taking Back Astonomy by Dr. Lisle is the online book from which these last two posts were taken.  You might be surprised if you were to go and read the entire book.  

Now that we have begun to carefully study our Solar System with various space missions, it has become pretty obvious that the long-age assumptions of Darwinists were unfounded.   All of the planets studied thus far have shown signs of being quite young.  While Darwinists strive to use the least reliable age measurements, that is, elements with extremely long half-lifes that make it difficult to be sure they are valid...especially when they measure recent formations as many thousands or even millions of years old!  Darwinists also use improperly calibrated C-14 measurements.  Since we find C-14 in every single layer of fossils, and since C-14 should not be present at all in anything that is 100,000 years old, that tells us all fossils are less than 100,000 years old.  But then the measurement of the magnetic field of the Earth puts us at probably less than 25,000 years old, as does the imbalance of C-12/14 in the atmosphere of the Earth.   The age of the Earth cannot exceed the shortest possible age.

How could the Earth be 6,000 years old if the Universe is billions of years old?  Time is relative depending upon the point of view and other factors specified by General Relativity.  An expanding Universe (which the Bible tells us, by the way) could explain this quandary.   There are too many aspects of the Universe which defy the standard Big Bang model to take it seriously.  It really is time for the world of science to grow up!  Dr. Humphreys came up with a model that makes testable predictions and his predictions have turned out to be true.  Meanwhile the Hawkings of this world give us equations missing 96% of the components.  Creationists came up with the scientific method and established most fields of study in science...basically you'd say that Creationists invented modern science.  Natural Selection?  Identified by a Creationist as part of the Creation model.  Genetics?  Invented by a Creationist.  Astronomy?  Electrical Theory?  Physics? Thermodynamics?  It is hard to find a basic science field NOT begun by a Creationist.  

Now we know that all organisms have all the hallmarks of design.  Organisms are molecular machines with hardware, software, operating systems and information that directs processes and repairs and reproduction.  Organisms have redundancy and organisms have libraries of genetic information from which to select so that as conditions vary, the organism will produce wide varieties of each kind so that the most fit for the situation will survive and reproduce.  There is absolutely nothing about organisms that hints at some beginning involving random collisions of atoms bonking around somehow creating sophisticated systems that organisms possess.  Mankind is continually learning from organisms and studying them has led us to advances in flight, in producing energy, in attachment mechanisms, friction reduction...entire fields of study are devoted to simply studying organisms and trying to copy their superior designs.  In computer technology we are babies compared to the sophisticated DNA-RNA coding mechanisms used by organisms.  One human cell has more systems and operations and processes going than an automobile manufacturing plant.  Only propaganda and censorship and brute force keeps the lid on the truth.

Look up Biomimetics and Biomimicry.  Check out how Nanotechnology depends on nature and learns from organisms.  God created a molecular motor that resembles the standard electric motor, only far more sophisticated and advanced and it is the flagellum motility system of the e.coli bacteria!  Organisms use radar and sonar and can navigate by the magnetic field of the Earth. There are organisms that navigate in ways we still cannot understand AND can solve navigation problems faster than human computers.  Obviously organisms did not figure out how to do sophisticated and instant calibrations of the speed and direction of their fellow fish or birds when schooling or flocking and yet they can move together in an intricate balletic way that defies anything man can devise.  We are impressed when five jets fly in formation and do tricks in unison.  Imagine the calculations required by a school of two thousand fish all managing to move away from predators and obstacles without colliding at full speed as if they were one creature?

No,  random bonking of atoms together (and where do they get the atoms?) can never explain the creation of the Universe or the Solar System or the Earth or certainly not life and information.  No.

by Dr. Jason Lisle

  Recession of the Moon

As the moon orbits the earth, its gravity pulls on the earth’s oceans, causing tides. Since the earth rotates faster than the moon orbits, the tidal bulges induced by the moon are always “ahead” of the moon. For this reason the tides actually “pull forward” on the moon, which causes the moon to gain energy and gradually spiral outward. The moon moves about an inch and a half farther away from the earth every year due to this tidal interaction. Thus, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past.

Recession of the moon

Six thousand years ago, the moon would have been about 800 feet (250 m) closer to the earth (which is not much of a change considering the moon is nearly a quarter of a million miles, or 400,000 km, away). So this “spiraling away” of the moon is not a problem over the biblical time scale of 6,000 years, but if the earth and moon were over 4,000,000,000 years old (as big-bang supporters teach), then we would have big problems. This is because the moon would have been so close that it would actually have been touching the earth less than 1.5 billion years ago. This suggests that the moon can’t possibly be as old as secular astronomers claim.
Secular astronomers who assume the big bang is true must invoke other explanations to get around this. For example, they might assume that the rate at which the moon was receding was actually smaller in the past (for whatever reason), but this is an extra assumption needed to make their billions-of-years model work.
The simplest explanation is that the moon hasn’t been around for that long. The recession of the moon is a problem for a belief in billions of years, but is perfectly consistent with a young age.

  The Magnetic Field of the Earth

Most people have some familiarity with magnets, like the kind that stick to a refrigerator door. Magnets have an almost “magical” ability to attract other magnets or certain metals separated by a distance—they seem to reach out over space and pull with invisible fingers. The region of space surrounding a magnet which exerts a force on other magnets is called a “magnetic field.” Magnetic fields are caused by electric current—motion of charged particles.4
The earth’s magnetic field is approximated by a “dipole”—meaning the magnet has one north pole and one south pole. This dipole is roughly aligned with the earth’s rotation axis (being off by about 11.5 degrees). That is, the north magnetic pole is close to the north rotation pole. This is why a compass points approximately north; it aligns with the geomagnetic field. This magnetic field surrounds the earth and is an important design feature. The universe contains radiation which is harmful to living tissue. Earth’s magnetic field protects life by deflecting dangerous cosmic radiation. The atmosphere also offers some protection.

The earth’s magnetic field
The earth’s magnetic field
The earth’s magnetic field is caused by electric currents within its interior. Such currents encounter electrical resistance, and so they naturally decay with time. We would therefore expect that earth’s magnetic field would become weaker as time progresses. We have been able to measure the strength of the magnetic field for over a century, and not surprisingly, the earth’s magnetic field is indeed decaying. Every century, the magnetic field decays by about 5 percent. Since the earth’s magnetic field gets weaker as time moves forward, it must have been considerably stronger in the past. Approximately 6,000 years ago, the magnetic field would have been quite a lot stronger, but still perfectly suitable for life.
However, if the earth were many millions of years old, then the geomagnetic field would have been so strong in that alleged distant past, that life would not have been possible.5

  Magnetic Fields of the Planets

Jupiter’s aurora
Jupiter’s aurora
Saturn’s magnetic field
Saturn’s magnetic field
Many of the planets of the solar system also have strong dipole magnetic fields. Jupiter’s magnetic field, for example, is extremely powerful. The magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune are also quite strong. If these planets were really billions of years old (as secular astronomers believe), their magnetic fields should be extremely weak by now. Yet, they are not. A reasonable explanation for this is that these planets are only a few thousand years old, as the Bible teaches.
The suggestion that the solar system is only thousands of years old is, of course, an intolerable position for those who believe in particles-to-people evolution. The vast ages are required for their worldview, and so must be protected at all costs. Therefore, the apparent youth of the universe must be explained away by the addition of auxiliary hypotheses. For example, secular astronomers have proposed that planetary magnetic fields can be “recharged” over time. Specifically, they invoke the idea of a “magnetic dynamo” powering the magnetic fields of planets. The basic idea is that motion within the planets can regenerate the magnetic fields so that the total field strength will not decay. However, the planets do not fit the conditions necessary to drive such a dynamo. The simplest explanation is that the solar system is much younger than billions of years.

  Magnetic Fields Confirm Recent Creation

Dr. Russ Humphreys, (a Ph.D. physicist and biblical creationist) has produced a model of planetary magnetic fields which can explain their present strengths in terms of biblical creation.10In essence, the model estimates the initial strength of each magnetic field at the moment of its creation, then the model computes their present strengths based on 6,000 years of decay from electrical resistance. Impressively, this biblically based model is able to account for the present measured magnetic fields of all the known planets11 and even many of the moons as well.
Of course, almost any model can be “adjusted” to fit existing data, so it is perhaps even more impressive that Dr. Humphreys’ model successfully predicted the present magnetic field strengths of the planets Uranus and Neptune before they were measured by the Voyager spacecraft. Specific, successful predictions are the mark of a good scientific model. Dr. Humphreys also predicted that Mars would have remanent (permanent) magnetism, which has now been confirmed.12 Remanent magnetism occurs in rocks which cooled and solidified in the presence of an external magnetic field. Such remanent magnetism is also found on the moon. This confirms that both the moon and Mars once had strong magnetic fields as expected in the Humphreys model. Planetary magnetic fields strongly support the biblical age of the solar system.

  Spiral Galaxies

A galaxy is an enormous assembly of stars and interstellar gas and dust. Galaxies occur in a range of sizes and can contain anywhere from a million to a trillion stars. Our galaxy (the Milky Way) contains over 100 billion stars. Galaxies also come in a range of shapes. Many are round or elliptical in nature. Others have an irregular shape, such as the clouds of Magellan—two satellite galaxies of the Milky Way. Some of the most beautiful galaxies are spiral in nature. A spiral galaxy has a flat-disk shape with a central bulge. The disk section contains spiral arms—regions with greater numbers of stars which extend from the periphery of the galaxy to the core.

Differential rotation of a spiral galaxy
Differential rotation of a spiral galaxy
Spiral galaxies slowly rotate, but the inner regions of the spiral rotate faster than the outer regions; this is called “differential rotation.”13This means that a spiral galaxy is constantly becoming more and more twisted up as the spiral becomes tighter. After a few hundred million years, the galaxy would be wound so tightly that the spiral structure would no longer be recognizable. According to the big-bang scenario, galaxies are supposed to be many billions of years old, yet we do see spiral galaxies—and lots of them. This suggests that they are not nearly as old as the big bang requires. Spiral galaxies are consistent with the biblical age of the universe, but are problematic for a belief in billions of years.
Secular astronomers have proposed “spiral density waves” to create new spiral arms as old ones become twisted beyond recognition. The idea is that waves of pressure travel around the galaxy and stimulate new star growth. Of course, such waves have not been observed, so the idea remains a conjecture. Furthermore, the spiral density wave notion assumes that stars can form spontaneously. Although virtually all secular astronomers assume this, star formation has significant problems of its own. Furthermore, there are difficulties in starting any supposed density wave in the first place. Such complications are not necessary if we accept the most straightforward interpretation of the evidence: galaxies are not billions of years old.


Interior view of a comet
Interior view of a comet
Hale-Bopp comet
Hale-Bopp comet
Artist rendition of the (purely hypothetical) Oort cloud as seen from the Alpha Centuri system
Artist rendition of the (purely hypothetical) Oort cloud as seen from the Alpha Centuri system
Comets are balls of ice and dirt which orbit the sun, often in highly eccentric orbits. The solid central portion of a comet is called the nucleus. Comets generally have a region of vaporized material surrounding them which appears as a faint “fog”—this is called the “coma.” Comets spend most of their time moving slowly near the point in their orbit that is farthest from the sun (aphelion). As they approach the sun, they speed up and slingshot around the sun, moving fastest at the closest point (perihelion). It is during these points of close approach that many comets develop a “tail”—a stream of vaporized material which extends away from the comet. The tail points away from the sun, because the material is swept away by solar wind and radiation. Often two tails develop: an ion tail consisting of light charged particles, and a dust tail containing heavier materials. The ion tail is slightly blue in color; it is straight and points directly away from the sun. The dust tail is white and is generally curved. Sometimes only one of the two tails is visible.
A comet’s tail (or tails) is an indication that comets cannot last forever. The tail means that the comet is losing material; a comet gets smaller every time it orbits the sun. It has been estimated that a typical comet can only orbit the sun for about 100,000 years at most before completely running out of material. (This is an average figure, of course; the exact life span would depend on how big the comet is to begin with, and the parameters of its orbit.) Since we still have a lot of comets, this suggests that the solar system is much younger than 100,000 years.This agrees perfectly with the Bible. Clearly, 4.5 billion years would be an absurdly inflated age for comets.
How do secular astronomers attempt to reconcile this with their belief in billions of years? Since comets can’t last that long, secular astronomers must assume that new comets are introduced to the solar system to replace those that are gone, so they’ve invented the idea of an “Oort cloud.”14 This is supposed to be a vast reservoir of icy masses orbiting far away from the sun. The idea is that occasionally an icy mass falls into the inner solar system to become a “new” comet. It is interesting that there is currently no evidence of an Oort cloud, and there is no reason to believe in one if we accept the creation account in Genesis. Comets are consistent with the fact that the solar system is young.


NGC 6543, nicknamed the “Cat’s 
Eye Nebula”
This NASA Hubble Space Telescope image shows one of the most complex planetary nebulae ever seen, NGC 6543, nicknamed the “Cat’s Eye Nebula.” Hubble reveals surprisingly intricate structures including concentric gas shells, jets of high-speed gas and unusual shock-induced knots of gas.
Clearly, there are many evidences which are fully consistent with the biblical age of the universe and are difficult to reconcile with a belief in billions of years. They are not “proofs,” since big-bang supporters can always invent non-falsifiable conjectures to explain away these evidences, but we have seen that when we use the Bible to understand the age of the universe, the evidence is certainly consistent.
In most of the arguments for a young universe discussed above, we have used uniformitarian and naturalistic assumptions, which of course we do not accept. We have deliberately used the assumptions of the opposing point of view to show that these assumptions lead to contradictions. For example, we showed that assuming that the moon formed naturalistically 4.5 billion years ago, and that the rate of spiraling away hasn’t deviated (from the constant 1/r6 relation) then the moon can’t be older than 1.5 billion years—a contradiction. Such inconsistencies are common in non-biblical worldviews.
Uniformitarianism is a blind philosophical assumption; it is not a conclusion based on evidence. Furthermore, it is incompatible with the Bible. The present is not the key to the past. Just the opposite: the past is the key to the present! The Bible is the revealed Word of the Creator God who knows everything, and has given us an accurate account of history. The Bible (which tells us about the past) is the key to understanding the present world. When we start with the Bible as our presupposition, we find that it makes sense of the world. Of course the planets would have strong magnetic fields; of course galaxies would not be twisted up; and of course we still have comets. These are what we would expect in a biblical worldview. The Bible is true, and the evidence confirms that the universe is thousands of years old.

Creation In-Depth:

Recession of the Moon

Tidal bulges develop on earth because the moon is closer to one side of the earth than the other, and thus its gravity pulls harder on the near side. This causes the overall shape of the earth to be slightly elliptical. The height of the tidal bulges would be greater if the moon were closer to the earth. The earth rotates faster than the moon revolves; thus, the tidal bulges are always ahead of the moon. Since they pull forward on the moon, the bulges transfer angular momentum and kinetic energy—increasing the moon’s orbital energy and causing it to move away from the earth. The rate of this recession is approximately proportional to the inverse sixth power of the earth-moon distance. As a rough estimation, this can be shown as follows:
The tidal bulges are approximated as a dipole (two points separated from the center of the earth). The dipole separation is proportional to 1/r3, where r is the earth-moon separation.1So, we would expect that tidal bulge height goes as roughly h=1/r3. However, the force with which the tidal bulges pull back on the moon also goes as h/r3 for a given height (h). So we expect the rate of tidal recession goes as approximately 1/r6.
It follows that the equation describing tidal recession is:
dr/dt = k/r6
The constant k can be found using the current measured rate of lunar recession: 3.8 cm/year. Thus, k = r6dr/dt = (384,401km)6 x (.000038km/year) = 1.2 x 1029 km7/year. The lunar recession equation is then solved for the extreme case (the upper limit on age of the moon):
Recession of the moon formulae

Here, T is the maximum age for the moon since this assumes it migrated from a distance of zero to its current distance of R = 384,401 km. Plugging in the known values gives an upper limit on the age of the earth-moon system of T = 1.5 billion years—much less than the 4.5 billion years that evolutionists require.
Since critics of biblical creation cannot accept this conclusion, they are forced to adopt secondary assumptions to make the evidence fit. Some have suggested that k may not be constant in time; perhaps the different distribution of continents in the past affected the tidal breaking of the earth’s oceans. This speculation does not necessarily solve the problem though. First, a different continental distribution does not guarantee that k would be smaller; if it were larger, then the problem would be even worse.
Second, k would have to be substantially smaller in order to ameliorate the problem. Third, geological evidence argues against this claim, even if we accept the evolutionary/long-age interpretation of such evidence. Studies of tidal rhythmites performed by secular scientists are consistent with k being approximately constant over geologic time (assuming the evolutionists’ dating methods).2 Furthermore, there is no evidence of the extreme tides that would have resulted from a moon that is very close to the earth.3 Of course, this is what biblical creationists would expect, since the moon was only about 800 feet (250 m) closer at creation, roughly 6,000 years ago.

 Getting Around the Magnetic Field Evidence

The straightforward interpretation that the earth is not billions of years old is, of course, an intolerable conclusion for evolutionists. Additional assumptions are therefore required to explain this evidence within the naturalist’s worldview. So far, however, the secular explanations have not been able to endure careful scrutiny. For example, some secular scientists have suggested that only the dipole component of earth’s magnetic field has been decaying, and that the non-dipole components have increased in energy to compensate. They’ve suggested that the overall energy of earth’s magnetic field has not decreased. However, this is not the case; any increase in the non-dipole field has been shown to be much smaller than the decrease in the dipole field.6 Thus, the total energy of the earth’s magnetic field is decaying and therefore supports a recent creation.

 Magnetic Dynamo Versus Magnetic Decay

Magnetic and electrical energy can be generated from mechanical energy (motion). This is how the alternator in a car works. Undoubtedly, there are places in the universe where mechanical energy is converted into magnetic fields. It seems likely that the sun undergoes just such a process; it reverses its magnetic field every 11 years. Many secular astronomers assume that the planets also undergo such a process (though this has not been observed in the present). However, the fact that such processes can occur (and there is good evidence for magnetic reversals preserved in earth rocks, for which there is a respectable creationist theory7) does not necessarily solve the problem of strong magnetic fields for an “old” universe.
First, an electromagnetic-mechanical system must be set up in just the right way in order to cause the total magnetic field energy to increase. There is no guarantee that vigorous motions which cause magnetic field reversals could actually recharge the total magnetic field energy and prevent it from decaying with time. In fact, such magnetic field reversals might actually accelerate the decay of the total field strength—as may be the case with the sun.8
Second, there are a number of good reasons to believe that the magnetic fields of the planets are not dynamos, and are much different than that of the sun. The sun is so hot that most of its atoms are ionized—the electrons have been stripped away from the nucleus in a state called “plasma.” Plasma is highly sensitive to magnetic fields, and interacts with them much more strongly than neutral gas. The turbulent motions within the sun are constantly generating chaotic bits of magnetism. However, the planets are not made of plasma and do not exhibit the kinds of motions we see in the sun. Additionally, in the process by which the sun is thought to reverse its magnetic field, the rotation axis should be almost exactly aligned with the magnetic poles. This is the case for the sun, but not for the planets. In fact, the planets Uranus and Neptune have magnetic fields which are tilted severely relative to their respective rotation axes.

The sun’s magnetic field

The sun also possesses powerful toroidal magnetic fields (in addition to a dipole field). Instead of having a north and south magnetic pole, toroidal magnetic fields make a complete loop around the sun, forming bands parallel to the solar equator. At least one band exists in the Northern Hemisphere, and another is in the Southern Hemisphere with opposite polarity. Sunspots generally occur at the latitudes of these toroidal bands. These toroidal magnetic fields are critical in the process of reversing the sun’s magnetic field, and yet the planets do not show evidence of strong toroidal magnetic fields. Moreover, there is no evidence that the magnetic fields of the planets are reversing today as the sun’s does.9 The magnetic fields of the planets today are consistent with the simple decay produced by electrical resistance.

 Dr. Humphreys’ model of planetary magnetic fields

Dr. Russ Humphreys has produced a creation-based model of planetary magnetic fields. This model proposes that when God created the planets of the solar system, He made them first as water which God then supernaturally changed into the substances of which the planets are comprised today. This idea may be suggested (at least for the earth) in passages such as2 Peter 3:5. Water molecules can have a small magnetic field of their own due to the quantum spin of the proton in each of the two hydrogen atoms. If a significant fraction of these molecular magnetic fields were aligned when the planets were first created, they would add to produce a strong dipole magnetic field. Although the molecular alignment would quickly cease due to random thermal motion of the molecules, the magnetic field would induce electric currents which would maintain the strength of the magnetic field. After God transforms the water into other materials, the electric current maintaining the magnetic field will begin to decay as it encounters electrical resistance within the material. The greater the electrical conductivity of the material, the longer it will take for the magnetic field to decay. To compute the current magnetic field of any given planet, we simply need to know the initial magnetic field strength of the planet, and then reduce this by the decay after 6,000 years. This is determined by (1) the amount of alignment (k) of the original magnetic fields, and (2) the size of the planet’s conductive core. A larger, more conductive core will allow electric currents to last longer; thus, the magnetic field will take longer to decay.
The mass of each of the planets is well known and can be computed very precisely from the periods of any orbiting moons (or the trajectories of nearby space probes). The core size and conductivity can be estimated as well. The only free parameter of the model is the amount of initial alignment which could be between k=0 (no molecular alignment) and k=1 (maximum alignment). Dr. Humphreys now thinks that the data are most consistent with k=1. Using such a value, the earth’s present magnetic field is perfectly consistent with this model. Furthermore, since k cannot be greater than 1, this sets an absolute upper limit on all the magnetic fields of the sun and planets today. Indeed, none of the known magnetic fields in the solar system exceeds the upper limit predictions based on this model, yet the evidence is compelling that they would have been reasonably close to this limit at their creation roughly 6,000 years ago. The evidence fits very well with the biblical time scale.
Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.


  1. The fact that a dipole force produced by two objects on a third object is proportional to 1/r3 can be derived from a binomial expansion on the equation of gravity (F=-GmM/r2). Such a derivation is available in many introductory physics textbooks on the topic. Back
  2. C.P. Sonett, E.P. Kvale, A. Zakharian, M.A. Chan, and T.M. Demko, “Late Proterozoic and Paleozoic Tides, Retreat of the Moon, and Rotation of the Earth,” Science 273 (1996): p. 100–104. Back
  3. Ibid., p. 101. Back
  4. The creationist scientist James Clerk Maxwell discovered the four equations which govern the behavior of electric and magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are caused by electric current or a change in an electric field. Electric fields are caused by charged particles, or a change in a magnetic field. Back
  5. For this example, we neglect the effects that the Genesis Flood would have had on the magnetic field. It is thought that the extensive and rapid tectonic activity associated with the Flood would have disrupted the circulating currents in the core, causing rapid, successive reversals of the magnetic field. Such an effect is consistent with alternating bands of remanent magnetism found by geomagnetic ocean floor surveys, for example. It is thought that such a process will cause a net reduction in the overall energy of the earth’s magnetic field, thus causing it to decay at an accelerated rate. As such, it would only make the problem worse for a many-millions-of-years-old earth. Back
  6. D.R. Humphreys, “The Earth’s Magnetic Field is Still Losing Energy,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 39 (June 2002). Back
  7. D.R. Humphreys, “Reversals of the Earth’s Magnetic Field During the Genesis Flood,” Proc. First ICC, Pittsburgh, PA, 2:113-126, 1986. Back
  8. This has been suggested by Dr. Russ Humphreys in his article on “The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields” available online at:
  9. There is evidence that the earth experienced temporary reversals during the Flood year due to the tremendous tectonic activity disrupting the circulation of electric currents in the core. Back
  10. D.R. Humphreys, “The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 21 (3) (December 1984). Back
  11. However, Pluto’s magnetic field has not yet been measured. According to Dr. Humphreys’ model, Pluto should not have an appreciable magnetic field. Back
  12., p. 8. Back
  13. In quantum physics, particles often behave as if they are rotating. This property is called “spin” because the particles possess angular momentum. This is similar to the rotation of larger objects except that on the quantum level the angular momentum comes only in discrete quantities. Back
  14. Named after Dutch astronomer Jan Oort. Back