1. The Solar System: Uranus, Jason Lisle, Acts & Facts, 1 February
The orientation of Uranus’ magnetic field is quite unusual. Most planets have a magnetic field that is approximately aligned with their rotation axis. Not so with Uranus. The magnetic axis is offset from the rotation axis by an astonishing 60 degrees. Moreover, the magnetic axis does not pass through the center of the planet but is offset to one side by roughly one third the radius of the planet. From a secular perspective, it is mystifying that Uranus should have a magnetic field at all. Magnetic fields naturally decay with time and should be nonexistent in planets that are billions of years old.
On the other hand, the magnetic field of Uranus fits perfectly with biblical creation. In 1984, creation physicist Russ Humphreys predicted the magnetic field of Uranus based on the amount of magnetic decay that would have happened on the planet in the 6,000 years since its creation.11 Voyager 2 confirmed this prediction. Although the presence of a strong magnetic field on any planet is a confirmation of recent creation, this is especially the case for Uranus.
So the standard explanation, which models planetary magnetic fields as complex fluid “dynamos,” cannot explain a misaligned and off-centre field, but Humphreys’ model, effectively a giant decaying bar magnet, can? That doesn’t make any sense.
Deeper reading: the notion that he “predicted” the field of Uranus is debunked at talk.origins – basically, it was the equivalent of him saying “I predict that you earn $70,000 in a year, but if you earn anything between $7,000 and $700,000 I’m going to claim it as a win.” For more on Humphreys search for him in the bar on the right near the top.
In the next paragraph Lisle also claims that Uranus “lacks any measureable internal heat.” While it’s true that the planet outputs considerably less heat relative to that which it gains from the sun than the other gas giants – less even than the Earth – that’s not at all the same as an outright absence. According to Lisle this means that a dynamo could not be powered: he seems to be picturing an entirely cold and dead world.
2. Counting Sheep Since Jacob’s Day, Brian Thomas, Acts & Facts, 1 February
Genesis presents the first written record of selective breeding when it describes Jacob inducing specific sheep to mate and then separating the “stronger livestock” from the “feeble.” There is every historical indication that this practice has continued unbroken from before Jacob’s time until today. How many years has this artificial selection been going on?
And I thought we were supposed to be all about the strong vs. the weak… The biblical story that Thomas is referencing – which is actually about goats, but accuracy when talking about sacred texts is for chumps – involves Jacob attempting some sympathetic magic in an attempt to produce results which appear to be caused by underlying mendalian genetics about which he is utterly ignorant. It does talk about differentiating between the stronger and feebler goats, but this is all about the placement of the magic sticks he has made and not an actual breeding project as we would understand it.
Deeper reading: Thomas’ point is that artificial selection doesn’t produce new kinds, therefore Darwin was wrong when he used it as evidence for the power of natural selection. To which I say: have you looked at the abominations that have been inflicted on Brassica oleracea lately?
3. Early Man Findings Contradict Evolution, David Coppedge, Creation Evolution Headlines, 3 February
PhysOrg reported a fossil claimed to be an ape-like Paranthropus that was supposedly evolving into Homo erectus, but if there was gene flow between Homo erectus and Neanderthals—as is now believed—it creates a severe break between the first two links. Moreover, the feet of the specimen show that this ape spent most of its life in the trees. It went extinct, the article says, not evolving into a human line.
Were do we start? Perhaps with how Paranthropus isn’t an ancestor of H. erectus, but instead a side branch? And what is he saying about H. erectus and Neanderthals? This makes even less sense than the Uranus story.
Deeper reading: This is just one of a number of news stories that Coppedge talks about in that article. All of the other explanations are similarly bad. Read through at your own risk.
4. Genetics — Not a Friend of Evolution, Bob Sorensen, Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman, 5 February
Evolution is an ancient pagan religion. After various attempts to make it appear scientific before and during the nineteenth century, Charles Darwin managed to popularize it in 1859 and 1871. People grabbed evolution as a means to reject God while appearing scientific and intellectual. Darwin taught that natural selection was the basis of changes in species. Creationists also believe in natural selection, as it eliminates organisms that are unfit for certain environments and is scientifically verified. However, traditional Darwinism had to abandon natural selection as a means of molecules-to-man evolution. (Surprisingly, some people are uninformed that they are holding to a belief system that has been left behind for decades; creationists often educate them. Or try to.)
That may be the worst explanation of evolution that I have ever seen. Congratulations? Sorensen has at least come across the fact that there is more to evolution than natural selection – a topic covered in detail in highschool biology here – but doesn’t seem to know the true significance of that fact.
Deeper reading: This wonderful example of the Dunning-Kruger effect is just a longwinded way for Sorensen to link to an apologetics article, as is often the case.
5. Noah’s Journal, (Unknown), Answers in Genesis, 6 February
Without having to use our imagination and relying instead on God’s Word, we read the account in Genesis 7 of the breaking apart of the fountains of the deep. This breaking up would have almost certainly tossed the Ark about. But because of its stable design due to its seaworthy proportions, the Ark would have ridden out the angry waters with confidence. After all, it was the Creator—the designer and builder of the world and all its magnificent complexities—who specified to Noah how the Ark was to be built.
YECs often seem to forget where the text ends and their interpretation – the “imagination” of a multitude – begins, especially when it comes to the Ark story. For one, it’s not at all clear what the “fountains of the deep” actually are. Whoever wrote this clearly has an idea, but whatever it is it’s not in genesis.
Deeper reading: this article is of course another ad for AiG’s Ark Encounter project. Wasn’t there an important deadline about that recently?
There you go. Have at!