Hi Spectre - Point takenÃ‚Â I am wandering a bit afield, but I do find it interesting.
Thanks for understanding.
Forensics came up because its a case where I think everyone agrees that we can draw firm (but not perfect) scientific conclusions, even though nobody was there -- which was one objection against evolutionist conjectures.
To be clear, I am not denying that we can draw reasonable conclusions from Science, but the origins of our universe and a crime scene that was present 0-20 years ago are two different things. The old Earth model is just simply unfalsifiable. I only point this out because atheists seem to believe that God is unfalsifiable.
You've also argued that conjectures about things over 6000 years ago are different in that they're unfalsifiable. I pointed out that there's no rule of science I'm aware of that automatically rules out evidence just because it relates to a theory about very old things; in fact, I believe scientists try to evaluate all the evidence that's available. And since you've raised planetary magnetic fields as a rebuttal to an ancient solar system, it appears to me that you implicitly acknowledge at least some theories about the distant past are falsifiable based on modern-day measurements. But if something is falsifiable then logically its also confirmable, which is what I've been trying to say all along.
I raised magnetic fields as an argument against an old universe and as for evidence of a young universe.(Just because magnetic fields are not kosher with an old universe does not necessarily falsify it, but the fact that Scientists would reject a better model just because they believe the universe is old is pretty ludicrous in my opinion. I'll expand more on this later.) Evidence does not prove/disprove anything in Science as it is constantly "evolving." See what I did there?
So I'm really not sure where you stand on this point - either evidence can be used to falsify or confirm young/old earth ideas, or it cannot. If it can, its worthwhile looking into the evidence. If not, there's little point doing so, at least in my opinion.
Evidence could be used to support either view based on how you see the evidence. I simply believe that while it is impossible to prove or falsify the age of the Earth, that the evidence for a young universe is simply stronger than an old universe.
I was referring to the part where Humphreys assumes God made the planets out of pure water, supernaturally configured the magnetic polarity of the water molecules, then miraculously converted the water to other elements (iron etc) immediately after creation.
Planet and star formation is still a highly theoretical area. I don't think it is fair to say that his model defies physics on this reason alone as we are still not sure how heavenly bodies can form or if they can form from a natural process. Humphreys was testing the Bible's claim that a planet may be able to be made out of water, and it passed.
I want to expand on some other underlying points as well that you put forth in your post. First, a dynamo powering a magnetic field in a planet with a solid core is not within the realm of physics. There is a georeactor model as well, but it is plagued with problems of its own. If you want to argue that Humphreys model is inadequate due to him appealing to the supernatural in a Creationist model, then perhaps you should think about the vast improbability of a dynamo being created from a solid core.
Second, the point I raised is that predictions are valuable in Science, successful predictions are more valuable. Certainly you agree with this. In fact, dead on predictions in physics is rare. Things rarely fall into place as well as Humphreys model did. He was wrong about Jupiter, okay, I'll give you that but I believe I explained why Jupiter is different quite well. Back to the second point again, Humphreys model did better than the secular model on every planet. I mean, Mercury was a disaster for the secular model since it was way too dense for a dynamo to occur. Again, the bottom line, predictions in Science has value, you have to admit that Humphreys predictions did better, and supernatural intervention was present in one planet, whereas your model counts on physics being defied on every planet. See what I am saying here?
Furthermore, and to expand to my third point. The Creation vs Evolution controversy is a large and heated one. There is so much disagreement that each side publishes work in their own journals. What Humphreys put forth was a Creationist model. He made his predictions for Creationist journals, not secular ones. Creationists were the primary audience he was aiming for. I sense this idea coming from many atheists I talk to that secular journals are better than Creationist journals. I disagree, because Creationists have been able to make accurate predictions based on scripture and have been validated by data in the future. When it comes to secular scientists and the origins of our universe, I do not really see this happen at all. I submit that the ability to make such predictions is evidence for the validity of The Bible and a young universe.
My reading shows evolutionists frankly admit problems with the dynamo theory. But to be consistent with the methods of science, they do not posit miraculous intervention to solve these problems, and they do not sweep aside evidence from many other independent areas about the great age of the solar system.
I do not really care about what secular scientists think(And by the way you may say they admit that the theory has flaws, but it doesn't seem to have been conveyed to the atheist republic, they act as if the models do not have any flaws whatsoever.), but I find it disturbing that they would knowingly use a highly flawed model and teach it in physics as if it were fact in classrooms. At the very least, since there is indeed a myriad of evidence for a young universe, they should include a section and present the possibility of a younger universe as a separate model without including God. After all, Humphreys predictions were dead on, barring Jupiter. But if we can excuse scientists being wrong about 9 out of 9 planets(at the time) in our solar system, surely if you are using consistent logic, being wrong about one planet in a young universe model would be excusable as well, just leave out the part about divine intervention or what-have-you, I would even let the scientists keep their idea of dynamos defying physics at mostly every planet formation.
Do you find your own beliefs to be scientific? What do you believe Seejay?