Intelligent Design, The Science of it All

Phase 1

Phase 1 consists of three distinct but interrelated components: 1) the splitting of the Pangaea supercontinent by predominately horizontal movement and the beginning of earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis.

Let us start off with defining some terms that will be used throughout the remainder of this oeuvre (a collective body of articles) :

Plate tectonics Noun

  1. a theory explaining the structure of the earth’s crust and many associated phenomena as resulting from the interaction of rigid lithospheric plates that move slowly over the underlying mantle.

Lithospehere Noun

  1. Geology The rigid outer part of the earth, consisting of the crust and upper mantle.

Asthenosphere. Noun

  1. Geology The upper layer of the earth’s mantle, below the lithosphere, in which there is relatively low resistance to plastic flow and convection is thought to occur.

Magma   Noun

  1. hot fluid or semifluid material below or within the earth’s crust from which lava and other igneous rock is formed by cooling.

Plate deformation   Verb

  1. a change in the mode of bedding, volume, internal structure, or relative position of a body of rock under the action of deep-seated forces that give rise to conditions of unidirectional or multidirectional extension, compression, or displacement.

This image may help to understand the three types of deformation.


Plate Tectonics Noun

  1. Consists of one of three types of shearing a) Rifting (splitting, separating, or moving apart); b) transform faulting (vertical or horizontal slipping along a fault line; and c) subduction- when one plate descends beneath another.


Plate tectonics is believed to be the mechanism causing separation and horizontal movement of the supercontinent at various rift zones. It is a theory that describes continental movement in which the earth’s crust, or lithosphere, is segregated into crustal plates floating on a semi-fluid (plastic) asthenosphere. Seismic and tectonic activity would have occurred almost exclusively at plate boundaries as these plates moved relative to one another. As the plates separated in various areas, hot asthenosphere rock material (magma) would have erupted along the rift lines in the form of violent volcanoes and earthquakes, and magma rose to fill the gap left by the spreading plates.

Various features of Baumgardner’s (see ) tectonic modeling have been independently validated by other research scientists1. This model explains the tectonic mechanisms for rapid continental separation (horizontal rifting), catastrophic processes such as massive earthquakes and super-volcanic eruptions, and a worldwide flood resulting in the erosional landscape and geologic features we observe today.


Convection currents are shown in the asthenosphere. These currents are one of the major modes of large-scale heat and mass transfer in a fluid. The less dense liquid magma in the lower mantle would rise while denser rocks in the upper mantle would sink, creating slow, concentric currents within the mantle. This movement of warmer and cooler rocks creates pockets of circulation called convective cells. (For details please see:

These convection currents move mantle rocks only a few centimeters a year in this day and age but the circulation of these convective cells was most likely the driving force behind the rapid movement of crustal plates over the asthenosphere during the worldwide flood. No one has ever observed these convection currents in the earth’s mantle, and God’s word, the Bible, is silent about plate tectonics but we have plenty of scientific evidence for it and a hint of it in the Bible.

When an underwater earthquake occurs, an enormous volume of water is displaced and a shock wave races through the water for thousands of miles, often at speeds exceeding 200 miles per hour. In the deep oceans this energy wave does little damage. Once it reaches shallow waters, though, it can wrap around islands and shorelines and become a wall of water from ten to hundreds of feet high (depending on the severity of the quake). This wall of water can pick up anything in its path of destruction and deposit it’s load of sediment (trees, soil and anything manmade) as well as any sea creatures unlucky enough to be caught.

We have had several in recent history. Although devastating, killing hundreds of thousands of people along the coastlines, these tsunamis were small compared with those which would have occurred during Noah’s Flood.

Accompanying earthquakes and tsunamis would also be volcanoes which spew and spill hot molten rock, gases, and ash under intense pressure. There are perhaps 4,000 to 5,000 volcanoes in the world today, about 1,900 of which are considered active, and possibly another 1,500 to 2,000 extinct volcanoes. As with earthquakes, about 80 percent of all volcanoes exist within the “Ring of Fire” of the Pacific Ocean, the boundaries of crustal plates.

Map of the Ring of Fire

Some recent volcanoes have been destructive, they are not comparable to volcanoes of the past. One of the largest super volcanoes lies beneath Yellowstone National Park. A super volcano refers to a volcano that produces the largest and most destructive eruptions on earth. Yellowstone formed a 35-mile by 40-mile caldera (top of volcano; circular volcanic depression) and was thousands of times more powerful than any known volcano today.


(The caldera is outlined in black and various mild earthquakes are marked in red).

Although secular geologists maintain that the volcano erupted 600,000 years ago, the reality is, this volcano and many other ancient super volcanoes were actually formed during the year of the Flood just 4,400 years ago. Catastrophic earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and immense tectonics (horizontal and vertical earth movement) increased throughout phases 2 and 3 of the Flood (which will be discussed in detail later).

Phase 2:

Phase 3:

Or back to original article:




1 Sorry that this is so long but there is a lot of proof that other secular scientists have agreed about.

Catchpoole, Sarfati, and Wieland (2008), The Creation Answers Book. (D. Batten, Ed.). Atlanta, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 168. Also see Weinstein, S.A. (1993). Catastrophic overturn of the earth’s mantle driven by multiple phase changes and internal heat generation. Geophysical Research Letters, 2: 101-104; Tackley, P.J., Stevenson, D.J., Glatzmaier, G.A., and Schubert, G. (1993). Effects of an endothermic phase transition at 670 km depth on spherical mantle convection. Nature, 36: 699-704; and Moresi L., and Solomatov, V. (1998). Mantle convection with brittle lithosphere: Thoughts on the global tectonic styles of the earth and Venus. Geophysical Journal International, 133: 669-682. Other evidence of runaway subduction is the presence of pseudotachylyte (PST), a dark-colored, glassy material, formed by frictional melting during high-speed rock movement. According to Dr. Tim Clarey, Ph.D., “the presence of PST is considered evidence of high-speed rock movement….. documented at many locations around the world, including several in subduction zone settings.” (Clarey, T. (2013). Runaway subduction and deep catastrophic earthquakes. Acts & Facts, 42 (1), Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research; and Clarey, T.L. et al. (2013). Superfaults and pseudotachylyte: Evidence of catastrophic earth movements. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Creationism. Horstemeyer, M., Ed. Pittsburg, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc.)

Evillution, Glossary, Intelligent Design, The Science of it All


Now let us get into the more difficult part: Million Years Age vs Young Age Earth

Today’s science relies on empirical analysis— that is, verification through repeated measurement and testing. It is the basis for what is known as the “scientific method,” the common steps that biologists and other scientists use to gather information to solve problems. These steps include observation, hypothesis (prediction), data collection, experimentation to test the hypothesis under controlled conditions, and conclusions.

Empirical analysis is a wonderful testing tool but its application is limited to the present— the way things are and the way they work in the present. Empirical science cannot deal directly with the past, as most people have been led to believe.

It is most important to realize that secular scientists assume evolution and old age as their foundation or basis for reconstruction or interpretation— evolution and an old earth are assumed to be true. An individual fact is accepted or rejected as valid only if it fits the old earth, evolutionary model. This is a very important concept to understand. The presumption of evolution “as fact” exists in many sciences including biology, geology, astronomy, paleontology, and anthropology.

If you set aside preconceived notions, and openly read and try to understand different viewpoints, you will soon realize that the preponderance of scientific evidence refutes evolution and overwhelmingly supports the creation model— not evolution.

When compared, the young earth model (creation and a worldwide flood) fits the data perfectly while the old earth model (evolution with ‘slow and gradual’ geologic events) has continual flaws— it is essentially upside down science.

The First Law of Thermodynamics, on the other hand, simply states that matter/ energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can be transferred from one form to another. This law confirms that creation is no longer occurring— but it also implies that creation occurred at sometime in the past!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter/ energy in the universe available for work is decaying or running down. Entropy is a measure of disorder or unusable energy— it represents energy that is no longer available for doing work. Every energy transformation reduces the amount of usable or free energy of the system and increases the amount of unusable energy. It is essentially a mathematical formula of the useless energy in a system.

(see detailed discussion at: )

Every energy transformation reduces the amount of usable or free energy of the system and increases the amount of unusable energy. In other words, while usable energy is used for growth and repair, it is “irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.”1

What’s the difference between Laws of Science and Theory? “Scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply then all science based upon that law would collapse.” The First and Second Laws have always proved valid whenever they could be tested— there are no exceptions to these laws. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations based on hypotheses and verified by independent researchers— but theories are not laws, and they are often disproven and replaced with other theories. A “law” differs from theories, hypotheses, and principles in that a law can be expressed by a single mathematical equation with an empirically determined constant.

Then God said, ‘Let the waters below the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear’; and it was so.”— Genesis 1: 9, NAS

The doctrine of uniformitarianism maintains that geological and other physical processes operating in the world today have remained constant throughout earth’s history. Catastrophism maintains that normal geological and physical processes of the earth have been interrupted by a cataclysmic worldwide flood. According to the Bible, there have been two great worldwide upheavals since the beginning of time: Original Creation (Genesis 1) and Noah’s Flood (Genesis 6-8).

In the early 20th century, Alfred Wegener, a German meteorologist, noted that the continents (including the continental shelves) fit together as a single supercontinent. This antediluvian (pre-flood) landmass is commonly called Pangaea, from the Greek root word for “all lands.” The northern part of Pangaea is called Laurasia and the southern part is called Gondwanaland.





This is the process of the separation of the

Pangaea into the continents as we now know them.



Although no one could have observed the separation of Pangaea into the present-day continents, the evidence which supports the splitting of this ancient supercontinent is substantial. This includes not only the physiographic fit of the continents but also the alignment of major fault zones when the continents are placed together. The questions are, how long did it take, and when did the splitting occur?

Tectonics is concerned with the processes which control the structure and properties of the Earth’s crust, and its evolution through time. In particular, it describes the processes of mountain building, the growth and behavior of the strong, old cores of continents known as cratons, and the ways in which the relatively rigid plates that comprise the Earth’s outer shell interact with each other. Tectonics also provides a framework to understand the earthquake and volcanic belts which directly affect much of the global population.


The separation or splitting apart of this ancient landmass took place about 4,400 years ago, during a catastrophic worldwide flood— a global event described in Genesis 6-8. This catastrophic shifting of landmasses and flooding can be separated into three phases (each phase overlapping into the next) which took place within a span of just one year— NOT millions of years as maintained by uniformitarian geologists.

At the end of the approximately 1,600-year antediluvian1 period just before the flood , it is believed that the population was more than 250 million people and the society was sophisticated, perhaps comparable to the early Egyptian culture.2

Also, climatic and topographic conditions were much different from our current world. Although the supercontinent had mountains, rivers and seas, its topography was much less prominent than we know today3 —the oceans weren’t so deep and the mountains weren’t so high (i.e., high hills and plateaus). There were other significant differences. The climate was similar to today’s temperate regions with moderate seasonal variations (Genesis 1: 14, 8: 22).

The splitting apart of the Pangaea landmass took place about 4,400 years ago, during Noah’s flood which was catastrophic and worldwide — described in Genesis 6-8. This catastrophic shifting of landmasses and flooding can be divided into three overlapping phases taking place within a span of just one year— NOT millions of years as maintained by uniformitarian geologists.

Events leading to our current land features were catastrophic rifting and subduction, uplift of ocean basins, flooding of the continents, sedimentary deposition, burial of uprooted forests (creating the coal and oil we find today), mountain and continental uplift, and torrential erosional drainage of the floodwaters. Horizontal movement— seafloor spreading and continental drift— was the main tectonic force during the first phase of the flood event, and vertical movement (uplift and subsidence of ocean basins, and mountain uplift or orogeny) was predominant in the latter two phases of the flood.

Click here for Phase 1:


1 Adjective: of or belonging to the time before the biblical Flood

2 I am not going to discuss the worlds population at this time and how far it had advanced. Many, many articles have been written and I do plan a follow up article on just that subject alone. Email me if you want more information.

3 Dillow, Joseph C. (1982). The Waters Above. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 141. Also see Whitcomb, J.C. (1988). The World That Perished. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 41-46.

Evillution, The Science of it All

Laws of Thermodynamics

Laws of Thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics doesn’t actually specify that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead that the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed (though it can be changed from one form to another). It was after nuclear physics told us that mass and energy are essentially equivalent – this is what Einstein meant when he wrote E= mc^2 – that we realized the 1st law of thermodynamics also applied to mass. Mass became another form of energy that had to be included in a thorough thermodynamic treatment of a system. (For a very important note on the difference between matter and mass, see here:
The first thing we have to do is determine what a “closed system” is. When we look at a physical situation and draw an imaginary circle around it, we’re defining a system. A refrigerator, for example, can be a thermodynamical system. But once we’ve specified that the system is closed, it means that everything inside the system at that moment – the total amount of energy, be it potential energy (mass can be thought of as a kind of potential energy) or kinetic energy or both – must stay at that same, constant level. If the amount goes up or down, either the system isn’t closed, or we’ve neglected to account for energy (for instance, heat) coming into the system or leaving the system. If we draw our imaginary circle around the universe, we can call the universe a closed system, but it means the total amount of energy in the universe has to remain the same – from its beginning until now.

You may be hesitant to believe that the total energy in the universe is constant because there appears to be so much of it, or because science seems to indicate that the universe is expanding. There are stars, planets, galaxies, globular clusters – everywhere, matter and energy seem to exist, and it’s constantly rushing off in all directions. But for starters, the expansion of the universe doesn’t have to take more energy – as the universe expands, the distances between stars or galaxies increases, and thus the gravitational energy between them decreases to compensate. And more importantly, thermodynamics doesn’t state what value the total energy should have. It could be a huge, but constant, number (this is what’s known as an “open” universe, where the amount of matter/energy in the universe exceeds a certain “cut-off” density: see It could be, as most physicists now believe, zero (this is called a “flat” universe, where the matter density in the universe is equal to the cut-off density). It could be negative, even (a “closed” universe, where the amount of matter is less than the cut-off density). It could be anything, but whatever value it is now, it was at the very beginning! According to physics, all of the matter and energy in the universe now existed in some form at the Big Bang.

The conservation laws in thermodynamics, for example, proscribe certain outcomes. The first law tells us that energy is never created or destroyed. The second tells us that the entropy of a closed system will never decrease over time. Those who claim that such “proscriptive laws” do not constitute knowledge because they are based on past but not future experience will not get far if they try to use their skepticism to justify funding for research on, say, perpetual motion machines.

So the UNIVERSE is a closed system, unless you are one of those who believes in multi-verses (strictly lame-brained theories) or that the universe is not infinite (many interesting thoughts and unbalanced equations to prove it).  If the universe is not a closed system, then you have to account somehow someway for the addition of mass or energy to it, so that there is no entropy.  If you have the intelligence to dream up all these wild ideas and try to prove it with unsubstantiated concepts (fuzzy matter, black matter, white matter, wormholes, etc) then I have to ask a simple question-Isn’t easier to believe in God as the Creator of all things?

Return to :  (MYA vs YAE to be finished)



Evillution, Intelligent Design, The Science of it All

 Rationale for a Young Age Earth (YAE)

The Origins debate is about how the things we see today came about. It involves combining scientific observations (we observe things through telescopes and microscopes) and the telling of historical stories about how the things we observe got here. Evolutionists typically talk about their origins story as if that is the only way to explain the things we observe. In addition, in doing so, in that way, it sounds like they are talking about their story as history as it were fact. If that is all you hear, then you begin to believe that maybe it is true. However, deep down you have to think there must be dozens of explanations for what really happened in the past- since nobody was there to actually document it as it happened.

The scientific revolution of the Earth sciences that developed during the 1960s established the plate tectonics paradigm as the reigning framework for explaining not only present day geophysical processes, but also the large-scale geological change in the past. This scientific information has correctly recognized many important aspects of our Earth’s dynamics and how near surface processes are linked to a variety of phenomena deep in the Earth’s interior. This prevailing uniformitarian point of view has, however, prevented secular scientists from reaching a final logical conclusion. Their perspective cannot explain why and how Earth has experienced a major tectonic catastrophe in its recent past according to their own data and computer modeling – which we all know are extremely inaccurate anyway.

I have become persuaded after a great deal of research and analysis of scientific data -mainly from secular scientists who can not explain vast gaps in their theories – that the Genesis Flood was primarily a tectonic catastrophe. It effectively resurfaced the planet in a few months’ time, destroyed all the non-marine air-breathing life except that saved by God on the Ark with Moses, and left a powerful testimony of that cataclysm in the rocks (otherwise known as the ‘geological column’) all around us.

I am still not 100% convinced due to some 55 years of indoctrination into the evolutionists point of view. An earth that is only 10,00 to 6,000 years old just seems incredibly dumb to believe if you have fallen hook, line and sinker for the prevalent mode being taught daily to the students in our schools.

Any serious model for the Genesis Flood must account for the massive tectonic changes evident in the geological record, since the point in that record where metazoan fossils first appear (otherwise it would be unduly criticized by the secularists). These tectonic changes include the complete replacement of the world’s ocean lithosphere, lateral displacements of continents by thousands of miles, significant vertical motions of the continental surfaces to allow the deposit of thick and laterally extensive sediment, and large local increases in the earth’s crustal thickness to generate today’s high mountain ranges. Without a mechanism that can account for these major tectonic changes in a logical and consistent manner, any claims about understanding, much less modeling the Flood cataclysm are useless. The correct model, on the other hand, will provide a framework into which the vast accumulation of detailed geological observations that have been made can be understood in a unified, coherent, and comprehensive manner.

The mechanism of catastrophic plate tectonics, enabled by runaway subduction of negatively buoyant ocean lithosphere into the Earth’s mantle, appears to account for the main tectonic changes associated with the Flood and provides, I believe, the best framework available for integrating and understanding the vast store of geological observational data.

In order to offer any kind of reasonable alternative theory to the current theory of evolution, there are some items that must be covered completely by both the secular concept and Biblical concept. I will maintain that the Biblical theory satisfies all the requirements better, covers the inevitable ‘exceptions to the rules’ better, and predicts future events more accurately and has the fewer number of inconsistencies involved with it.

Some of the problems that any theory of creation (secular or biblical) must deal with are the following:

The creation of the universe – ‘In the beginning’ or the ‘Big Bang’

How did everything come from nothing? When did time start? Will everything end someday? Do we exist here and someplace else at the same time? How do we really know what time is? How are we sure that we weigh what the scales say we do when none of the particles in an atom themselves have a detectable weight?

The formation of land masses and water areas

How and what created the land masses and the mountains and the deep valleys and canyons and the flat areas and the beaches and the underwater canyons and volcanoes and all the other mysteries of the earth.

Continental Drift

Electromagnetic Field

The pre-biotic soup

What kind of chemicals was floating in the ocean? Was their really an ocean? What was the atmosphere supposedly like? How was it possible for these few elements to combine into all the other chemical compounds and elements we now know exist.

The spontaneous development of self-replicating molecules

After thousands of experiments and even more lofty discussions among the elite of the secular molecular biologists, the only thing that has been confirmed is it is highly improbable.

The development of you and me from primordial goo

So then if the basic constituents of life can not create themselves how did they create us?

The existence of similar species on various land masses.

Why are some of the same species of plants and animals appear in various continents when there appears to be no possible correlations.

The ideas above will be covered in greater detail in separate articles. Right now we will be dealing with the idea of The formation of land masses and water areas.

Because we have been indoctrinated for so many years into believing what the secular scientists have told us about the geology of the world, we have blindly accepted this information as the truth. It is far from the truth and I will detail this in the following article and sub-articles related to it. I will provide a detailed and, in some places, technical critique of their hypothesis. To assist nontechnical readers, I have placed some of the details of this critique in notes for the more scientifically minded. I would ask technically minded readers to read these notes in full.   In some cases they provide important additional support for, or qualifications to, my arguments. Each element of this critique stands mostly on its own (there is some overlap but no where as much as in the secular viewpoint) and all the parts combine to form a complete and total overview.

Now we will get fairly deep into the science of all of this. If I am not able to write in such a way that you are able to understand me, then I am failing as a teacher. Please email so I may correct the part that you are not understanding so that we can help others to understand. Thank you. Please read with an open mind, you will learn some things and hopefully at least have a question or two about your preconceived notions.

The next sections are:


Intelligent Design, The Science of it All

Earths Magnetic Field

The earth has a magnetic field pointing almost north-south—only 11.5° off. This is an excellent design feature of our planet: it enables navigation by compasses, and it also shields us from dangerous charged particles from the sun. It is also powerful evidence that the earth must be as young as the Bible teaches.

Physics professor Dr Thomas Barnes noted that measurements since 1835 have shown that the field is decaying at 5% per century1 (also, archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than today2). Barnes, the author of a well-regarded electromagnetism textbook,3 proposed that the earth’s magnetic field was caused by a decaying electric current in the earth’s metallic core. This would calculate into a current that could not have been decaying for more than 10,000 years, else the original strength would have melted the earth- therefore   it has to be a very young earth.

The decaying current model is obviously incompatible with the billions of years needed by evolutionists. So their created and offered up a model that would supposedly be a self-sustaining dynamo (electric generator). It goes somewhat like this: the earth’s rotation and convection is supposed to circulate the molten nickel/iron of the outer core.


Positive and negative charges in this liquid metal are supposed to circulate unevenly, which then would produce an electric current, generating the necessary magnetic field. But scientists have not produced a workable model despite half a century of research, and there are many problems.4 What is also interesting is the measured rate of field decay (which both secular and biblical scientists agree upon) is sufficient to generate the correct current needed to produce today’s field strength, meaning that there is no need for a dynamo operating today, if it ever did operate.

As is typical of the secular scientists, they have a tendency to ignore facts that don’t fit into their particular “theory of anything that we hope makes sense”. They criticize Dr. Barnes theory (did I mention that he was a Christian scientist) because, again, both sides agree that there is evidence that the magnetic field has reversed many times—i.e. compasses would have pointed south instead of north. When grains of the common magnetic mineral magnetite in volcanic lava or ash flows cool below its Curie point of 570°C (1060°F), the magnetic domains partly align themselves in the direction of the earth’s magnetic field at that time. (For more details see: and pay attention to the bolded, italicized items.)

So without providing an explanation for how they believe it should work. They maintain that, because of the reversals, the straightforward decay assumed by Dr Barnes is invalid. Also, their model requires at least thousands of years for a reversal. And with their dating assumptions, they believe that the reversals occur at intervals of millions of years, and therefore by reversal thinking this points to an old earth.

The physicist Dr Russell Humphreys believed that Dr Barnes had the right idea, and he also accepted that the reversals were real. He modified Barnes’ model to account for special effects of a liquid conductor, like the molten metal of the earth’s outer core. If the liquid flowed upwards (due to convection—hot fluids rise, cold fluids sink) this could sometimes make the field reverse quickly.5,6

Dr John Baumgardner proposes that the plunging of tectonic plates was a major part of Noah’s Flood. I want to explain a little about Dr. Baumgardner and his expertise in this field. Please go to: Many secular scientists will admit to the breakup of Pangaea as the reason for the plate tectonics that they are able to measure today- they just believe it took many millions of years for it to happen.

Now I want you to stop and think a minute. Imagine one car sitting still and another car of the same make and model driving into it at 5 miles an hour. Now imagine the same situation but the other car is traveling at 120 mph. You would admit to considerable difference in damage to the stationary car. Now imagine this concept applied to the different continents. The Indian sub-continent bumps into the Asian continent by the force of the oceanic currents (about 5 mph) and according to secular scientists over the process of millions of years the subduction of the Indian sub-continent forced the Asian continent to buckle and created the Himalayans and Mt. Everest. In my mind the more likely scenario would be that the Indian sub-continent would have bumped into the Asian continent several times, caused some rocky chunks to fall off of each land mass and then eventually floated off on the oceanic currents ending up who knows where. Unless in a cataclysmic event the two continents were slammed together violently (really an unknown speed) causing the subduction and the folding and uplifting of the plates quickly. You decide which scenario makes more sense.

Dr Humphreys says these plates would have sharply cooled the outer parts of the core, driving the convection.7 This means that most of the reversals occurred in the Flood year, every week or two. And after the Flood, there would be large fluctuations due to residual motion. But the reversals and fluctuations could not halt the overall decay pattern—rather, the total field energy would decay even faster

Contrary to the hopes and dreams of the secular scientists, this model also explains why the sun reverses its magnetic field every 11 years. The sun is a gigantic ball of hot, energetically moving, electrically conducting gas. The dynamo model fails to explain why the overall field energy of the sun is decreasing and the secular scientists know it and choose to ignore discussing it.

Dr Humphreys also proposed a test for his model: magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record earth’s magnetic field in one direction; the inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction.

Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prévot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90° of reversal recorded continuously in it.8

The only LOGICAL conclusion:

The earth’s magnetic field is not only a good navigational aid and a shield from space particles, it is powerful evidence against evolution and billions of years. The clear decay pattern shows the earth could not be older than about 10,000 years.

Recently, geophysicist David Stevenson at the California Institute of Technology admitted the problems that the earth’s magnetic field poses for long-age dogma:

“Right at this moment, there is a problem with our understanding of Earth’s core and it’s something that’s emerged only over the last year or two. The problem is a serious one. We do not know understand how the Earth’s magnetic field has lasted for billions of years. We know that the Earth has had a magnetic field for most of its history. We don’t know how the Earth did that. We have less of an understanding now than we previously thought we had a decade ago of how the Earth’s core has operated throughout history.”9

Now we need to understand a little bit about EXPONENTIAL DECAY. It is a physical law, proven by many experiments over time by many scientists and it is used to calculate the use of electricity in everything electrical from your cell phone to adding new mega-watt power lines to the electrical grid. For some reason (because they have no other possibility) the secular scientists have to throw up something to counter the, at this point, undeniable concept of a Young Age Earth.

Some secular scientists have claimed that an exponential decay curve is wrong, and a linear decay should have been plotted. Now, both exponential and linear decay curves have two fitted parameters:

  • Exponential decay (i = Ie-t/τ) requires the parameters I and τ.
  • Linear decay of the general form y = mx + c requires the gradient m and y-intercept c.

There is no statistical reason to choose one over the other for the limited range of data available, with no significant difference between the two. However, it is a well-accepted procedure in modeling of regression analysis to use meaningful equations to describe physical phenomena, where there is a sound theoretical basis for doing so.

Currents in resistance/inductance circuits ALWAYS decay exponentially, not linearly, after the power source is switched off. For example, in a simple electric circuit at time t with initial current I, resistance R and inductance L, the current is given by i = Ie-t/τ, where τ is the time constant L/R—the time for the current to decay to 1/e (~37%) of its initial value. For a sphere (assuming the molten core is as close to one as imaginable) of radius a, conductivity σ and permeability μ,τ is given by μσa²/π².

A linear decay might look good on paper, but it’s physically absurd when dealing with the real world of electric circuits. In fact, linear decays are rare in nature in general. Conversely, exponential decay is firmly rooted in electromagnetic theory. Thomas Barnes, who first pointed out magnetic field decay as a problem for evolutionists, was a specialist in electromagnetism and wrote some well-regarded textbooks on the subject. But most of his critics are grossly ignorant of the subject or choose to ignore because it runs counter to what they want to believe.

Another important point is that these calculations point to a maximum age of the earth. Even if the skeptics were right about a linear decay, it would still point to an upper limit of 90 million years, and this is far too short of a time for evolution to have occurred- they need billions of years. A final point is that if the decay really were linear, we would not have much time left before the earth’s magnetic field disappears!

Some skeptics have used the following statement to counter the above fact:

‘… only the dipole-field strength has been “decaying” for a century and a half … the strength of the nondipole field (about 15% of the total field) has increased over the same time span, so that the total field has remained almost constant. Barnes’ assumption of a steady decrease in the field’s strength throughout history is also irreconcilable, of course, with the paleomagnetic evidence of fluctuations and reversals [in the geomagnetic field] (Ecker, 1990, 105)’

Ecker, the so-called ‘authority’ turns out to be an anti-creationist dictionary compiled by an anti-Christian librarian with, as far as my research has found, no scientific training!

Dr Humphreys answered in July 2001:

‘Litany in the Church of Darwin: “The non-dipole part of the earth’s magnetic field shall save us!” That is indeed an old and dismissive evolutionist argument. Tom Barnes discussed it in his papers during the 1970s. I discussed it near the end of my paper “A Physical Mechanism for Reversals of the Earth’s Magnetic Field During the Flood”.10

‘Over 90% of the field is dipolar (two poles, one north and one south), but the rest of it is non-dipolar, or multipolar, such as the quadrupole part (two north and two south poles), the octopole part (four north and four south poles), etc. Just imagine the fields from bar magnets tied together at various angles to one another.


‘In the 1970s, the evolutionists claimed that the very large energy (units are Joules or ergs) disappearing from the dipole part of the field is not really converted into heat, but is somehow being stored in the non-dipole part, later to be resurrected as a new dipole in the reverse direction. Some papers showed that the average field intensity (units are Teslas or Gauss) of some of the non-dipole parts is increasing slightly.11

‘But field intensity is not energy. To get the total energy in a component, one must square the intensity in a small volume around each point, multiply by the volume and a certain constant, and add up all the resulting energies throughout all space. The non-dipole intensities fall off (with increasing distance from the earth’s center) much faster than the dipole intensity, so the non-dipole parts are not able to contribute nearly as much energy to the total as the dipole part. That means the small increase in some non-dipole field intensities does not appear to represent nearly enough energy to compensate for the enormous energy lost year by year from the dipole part.

‘I have my doubts that the paper referred to actually proves the point the evolutionists want to make, that “non-dipole energy gain compensates for dipole energy loss”. It says that some energy will go into non-dipole components, but not nearly enough to compensate for the energy loss from the dipole part. The reversal process I propose is not efficient; it dissipates a large amount of energy as heat. I discussed this, including non-dipole parts by implication, in the second-to-last section (“The Field’s Energy Has Always Decreased”) on the ICR website. “Archaeomagnetism” is the study of the magnetization of bricks, pottery, campfire stones, and other man-related objects studied by archaeologists. Iron oxides in those objects retain a record of the strength and direction of the earth’s magnetic field at the time they last cooled to normal temperatures. Archaeomagnetic data taken worldwide show that the intensity of the earth’s magnetic field was about 40% greater in 1000 A.D. than it is today, and that it has declined steadily since then.” 12

‘As further evidence, I used the authoritative International Geomagnetic Reference Field data—more than 2500 numbers representing the earth’s magnetic field over the whole twentieth century. The bottom line is this:

‘In the most accurately recorded period, from 1970 to 2000, the total (dipole plus non-dipole) energy in the earth’s magnetic field has steadily decreased by 1.41±0.16%. At that rate, the field would lose at least half its energy every 1500 years, give or take a century or so. This supports the creationist model that the field has always been losing energy—even during magnetic polarity reversals during the Genesis flood—ever since God created it about 6000 years ago.

‘The evolutionists, on the other hand, have no workable, mathematically-analyzable theory of reversals. They are claiming that whatever process actually caused the reversals was 100% efficient—that the total energy in their hoped-for future dipole field will be equal to the total energy which was in the dipole field at its last peak (about the time of Christ). That is, their faith in a billion-year age for the field requires them to believe that each cycle is resurrected phoenix-like from the ashes of the previous cycle—with no losses.

‘Put another way, the Church of Darwin requires them to believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics—that all forms of energy devolve down to heat—does not apply to planetary magnetic fields. Sound familiar?’

Later, Dr Humphreys published ‘The Earth’s magnetic field is still losing energy’, CRSQ 39(1)1–11, March 2002, which explains the above and more in detail (see full article, and his Creation Matters layman’s summary—The Earth’s Magnetic Field: Closing a Loophole in the Case for its Youth, March/April 2002—both off site). The abstract of the CRSQ paper reads:

‘This paper closes a loophole in the case for a young earth based on the loss of energy from various parts of the earth’s magnetic field. Using ambiguous 1967 data, evolutionists had claimed that energy gains in minor (“non-dipole”) parts compensate for the energy loss from the main (“dipole”) part. However, nobody seems to have checked that claim with newer, more accurate data. Using data from the International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF) I show that from 1970 to 2000, the dipole part of the field steadily lost 235 ± 5 billion megajoules of energy, while the non-dipole part gained only 129 ± 8 billion megajoules. Over that 30-year period, the net loss of energy from all observable parts of the field was 1.41 ± 0.16 %. At that rate, the field would lose half its energy every 1465 ± 166 years. Combined with my 1990 theory explaining reversals of polarity during the Genesis Flood and intensity fluctuations after that, these new data support the creationist model: the field has rapidly and continuously lost energy ever since God created it about 6,000 years ago.’

The earth’s magnetic field is not only a good navigational aid and a shield from space particles, it is powerful evidence against evolution and billions of years. The clear decay pattern shows the earth could not be older than about 10,000 years.



1 K.L. McDonald and R.H. Gunst, ‘An analysis of the earth’s magnetic field from 1835 to 1965,’ ESSA Technical Report, IER 46-IES 1, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, 1967.

2 R.T. Merrill and M.W. McElhinney, The Earth’s Magnetic Field, Academic Press, London, pp. 101–106, 1983.

3 T.G. Barnes, Foundations of Electricity and Magnetism, 3rd ed., El Paso, Texas, 1977.

4 Measurements of electrical currents in the sea floor pose difficulties for the most popular class of dynamo models—L.J. Lanzerotti et al., Measurements of the large-scale direct-current earth potential and possible implications for the geomagnetic dynamo, Science 229:47–49, 5 July 1986.

5 D.R. Humphreys, Reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the Genesis Flood, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, 2:113–126, 1986. The moving conductive liquid would carry magnetic flux lines with it, and this would generate new currents, producing new flux in the opposite direction.

6 Humphreys, D.R., Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the flood, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, 2:129–142, 1990. Dr Barnes, who had opposed field reversals because no mechanism could be demonstrated, responded (p. 141): ‘Dr Humphreys has come up with a novel and physically sound approach to reversals of the magnetic field.’

7 D.R. Humphreys, Discussion of J. Baumgardner, Numerical simulation of the large-scale tectonic changes accompanying the Flood, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, 2:29, 1986.

8 R.S. Coe and M. Prévot, Evidence suggesting extremely rapid field variation during a geomagnetic reversal, Earth and Planetary Science 92(3/4):292–298, April 1989. See also the reports by Dr Andrew Snelling, Fossil magnetism reveals rapid reversals of the earth’s magnetic field, Creation 13(3):46–50, 1991 The Earth’s magnetic field and the age of the Earth, Creation 13(4):44–48, 1991

9 Cited in: Folger, T., Journeys to the Center of the Earth: Our planet’s core powers a magnetic field that shields us from a hostile cosmos. But how does it really work? Discover, July/August 2014.

10 Humphreys, D.R., Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the flood, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, 2:129–142, 1990.

11 Barraclough, D.R., Geophy. J. Roy. Astr. Soc., 43:645–659, 1975.




Dr John Baumgardner

John Baumgardner was working on a Ph.D. in electrical engineering when he discovered the reality of Jesus in a dramatic way through a group Bible study of the Gospel of John. After a four-year tour of duty at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, where he was engaged in gas dynamic laser research, he joined the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ. Observing the deliberate use of evolution to assault and destroy the faith of Christian college students, Dr Baumgardner began to develop and present classroom lectures and evening forums to expose evolution’s false claims.

Upon realizing that Noah’s Flood involved a planetary-scale tectonic catastrophe, he left Campus Crusade to begin a Ph.D. program in geophysics at UCLA in order to obtain the expertise and credentials to address the problem of the mechanism of the Genesis Flood at a professional scientific level. His Ph.D. thesis research involved the development of a 3-D spherical-shell finite-element model for the earth’s mantle, a program now known as TERRA.

Upon completing his Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics, he accepted a position as a staff scientist in the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he continued his research in planetary mantle dynamics, including the potential for catastrophic mantle overturn. He presented his work describing this mechanism for the Genesis Flood, now known as ‘catastrophic plate tectonics,’ at six International Conferences on Creationism held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Dr Baumgardner’s technical work at Los Alamos included development of a new global ocean model for investigating climate change. He served as a member of the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) team and led the RATE research effort on carbon-14. He retired from Los Alamos in 2004 and joined the Institute for Creation Research in 2005 where he helped develop a state-of-the-art computer program named Mendel’s Accountant for modeling of the processes of mutation and natural selection. In 2008 he joined Logos Research Associates, a collaborative network of Christian research scientists whose focus is origins and earth history issues from a Biblical perspective.


  • B.S., Texas Tech University, Lubbock, 1968
  • M.S., Electrical Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 1970
  • M.S., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1981
  • Ph.D., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1983

His model of plate tectonics:

I believe there is now overwhelming evidence in favour of continental break-up and large-scale plate tectonic activity. The acceptance of these concepts is an amazing example of a scientific revolution, which occurred roughly between 1960 and 1970. However, this revolution did not go far enough, because the earth science community neglected and suppressed the evidence for catastrophism—large-scale, rapid change—throughout the geological record. So the timescale the uniformitarian scientists today are using is dramatically too long. The strong weight of evidence is that there was a massive catastrophe, corresponding to the Genesis Flood, which involved large and rapid continental movements. My conclusion is that the only mechanism capable of producing that scale of catastrophe and not wrecking the planet in the process had to be internal to the earth.

I am persuaded it involved rapid subduction (sinking) of the pre-Flood ocean floor, pulling the ‘plates’ apart at the beginning of the Flood, and was probably associated with the breaking up of the ‘fountains of the great deep’ described in Scripture.

There are to my knowledge three other computer codes for modeling the earth’s mantle and so on, in the world. These other three use a mathematical method not so well suited for the modern parallel supercomputers. The one I developed uses the finite element technique and performs very well on the new, very large supercomputers. So, many of my colleagues are recognizing it as the most capable code in the world.

Runaway subduction

Last year NASA funded this effort as one of the nine grand challenge projects for the next three years in their High Performance Computing and Communication initiative, and are supporting two post-doctoral researchers to collaborate with me to improve it, and apply it to study the earth.

This code is comparable to what are called general circulation models for the atmosphere and oceans, which are some of the largest codes in the world in terms of how much machine power they consume. It’s got lots of physics in it to model the details of the mechanical behaviour of the silicate rock inside the earth. My present focus is to make the representation of the tectonic plates even more realistic. So the code is in an ongoing state of development, but it’s come a long way in the last 15 years.


Seafloor ‘zebra-stripes’ don’t mean slow and gradual.

The mid-ocean ‘ridges’ are undersea mountain chains with volcanoes at the boundary between two ‘plates’ of the earth’s outer shell. It is believed that here, molten magma from below can well up as the plates move apart, making new oceanic crust—a process called ‘seafloor spreading’. As the new crust cools down, it ‘freezes’ within it the direction of the earth’s magnetic field at that time.

When instruments measuring magnetism are towed (on the ocean surface) across these ridges, they detect bands of alternating magnetic direction, like a ‘zebra-stripe’ pattern, with each side of the ridge mirroring the other. This is interpreted to mean that as new seafloor had gradually formed on each side of the ridge, the earth’s magnetism had slowly reversed many times, over millions of years. However, DR Baumgardner says this pattern does not mean the spreading was slow. He says,

‘From an estimate of the viscosity of the outer core, where the currents associated with the earth’s magnetism exist, there is no reason why the magnetic field can’t reverse rapidly. Moreover, there is field evidence that it has reversed rapidly, within weeks.’[1]

In addition, drilling the sea floor has shown that, regardless of the overall direction of the magnetism detected from the surface, the magnetic direction within a drill core frequently varies widely. [2] This is less consistent with slow spreading than with a rapid welling up of new magma during a period of rapid reversals; the magma in contact with the surface will reflect the direction at that time, but by the time the deeper magma cools a few weeks later, the direction has switched again—and so on for deeper levels.

Return to:


End notes:

1 R.S. Coe, M. Prevot and P. Camps, ‘New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal’, Nature 374:687–692, April 20, 1995. The finding (by highly respected experts in paleo-magnetism) of ‘astonishing’ rates of reversal, has now been duplicated more than once.

2 J.M. Hall and P.T. Robinson, ‘Deep crustal drilling in the North Atlantic Ocean’, Science 204:573–586, 1980.

Evillution, The Science of it All

Cause of the earth’s magnetic field


earths_magnetic_fieldMaterials like iron are composed of tiny magnetic domains, which each behave like tiny magnets. The domains themselves are composed of even tinier atoms, which are themselves microscopic magnets, lined up within the domain. Normally the domains cancel each other out. But in magnets, like a compass needle, more of the domains are lined up in the same direction, and so the material has an overall magnetic field.

Earth’s core is mainly iron and nickel, so could its magnetic field be caused the same way as a compass needle’s? No—above a temperature called the Curie point, the magnetic domains are disrupted. The earth’s core at its coolest region is about 3400–4700°C (6100–8500°F), much hotter than the Curie points of all known substances.

But in 1820, the Danish physicist H.C. Ørsted discovered that an electric current produces a magnetic field. Without this, there could be no electric motors. So could an electric current be responsible for the earth’s magnetic field? Electric motors have a power source, but electric currents normally decay almost instantly once the power source is switched off (except in superconductors). So how could there be an electric current inside the earth, without a source?

The great physicist Michael Faraday (a creationist)  answered this question in 1831 with his discovery that a changing magnetic field induces an electric voltage, the basis of electrical generators.

Imagine the earth soon after creation with a large electrical current in its core. This would produce a strong magnetic field. Without a power source, this current would decay. Thus the magnetic field would decay too. As decay is change, it would induce a current, lower but in the same direction as the original one.

So we have a decaying current producing a decaying field which generates a decaying current … If the circuit dimensions are large enough, the current would take a while to die out. The decay rate can be accurately calculated, and is always exponential. The electrical energy doesn’t disappear—it is turned into heat, a process discovered by the physicist James Joule (a creationists) in 1840.

This is the basis of Dr Barnes’ model.

Return to: